ΠΑΝΕΠΙΣΤΗΜΙΟ ΠΕΙΡΑΙΩΣ ΤΜΗΜΑ ΟΡΓΑΝΩΣΗΣ ΚΑΙ ΔΙΟΙΚΗΣΗΣ ΕΠΙΧΕΙΡΗΣΕΩΝ ΠΡΟΓΡΑΜΜΑ ΜΕΤΑΠΤΥΧΙΑΚΩΝ ΣΠΟΥΔΩΝ
ΣΤΗ ΔΙΟΙΚΗΣΗ ΕΠΙΧΕΙΡΗΣΕΩΝ ΓΙΑ ΣΤΕΛΕΧΗ (MBA)
Διπλωματική Εργασία
REBRANDING MARKETING & CORPORATE MARKETING
THE CASE OF MONDELEZ
ΠΕΤΡΟΣ ΔΗΜΗΤΡΑΚΑΚΟΣ ΑΜ 1106
ΕΠΙΒΛΕΠΩΝ ΚΑΘΗΓΗΤΗΣ : κ. ΜΑΡΚΟΣ ΤΣΟΓΚΑΣ
Πειραιάς, 2018
H παρούσα εργασία έγινε για εκπαιδευτικούς σκοπούς και ορισμένα από τα στοιχεία που περιέχει ενδέχεται να μην είναι απολύτως ακριβή.
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
1. Contents
LIST OF TABLES & FIGURES ...... 5
AKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... 6
ABSTRACT ...... 7
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...... 8
1.1. Study Approach ...... 9
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 10
Rebranding Marketing ...... 11
2.1.1 Rebranding Marketing ...... 11
2.1.2 Rebranding marketing contrasted to branding marketing ...... 12
2.1.3 Reasons of Rebranding ...... 12
2.1.4 From Corporate Branding to Corporate Rebranding ...... 14
2.1.5 Strategic corporate rebranding ...... 16
2.1.6 A model of strategic corporate re-branding ...... 17
2.1.7 Rebranding Cases ...... 19
2.1.7.1 Best Corporate Rebranding Cases ...... 19
2.1.7.2 Case of Failure ...... 20
2.2 Corporate Marketing ...... 21
2.2.1 Corporate Marketing elements ...... 22
2.2.2 Corporate Marketing Mix ...... 25
2.2.3 Characteristics of Corporate Marketing...... 27
2.2.4 Comparing corporate marketing with traditional (product) marketing ...... 27
2.2.5 Corporate Communication ...... 28
2.2.6 Comparing corporate communication and corporate marketing ...... 30
2.2.6.1 Similarities ...... 31
2.2.6.2 Differences...... 31
2.3 An overview of the Case of Mondelez ...... 33
3 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
2.3.1 Reasons of rebranding ...... 34
2.3.2 Kraft-Cadbury: hostile takeover ...... 34
2.3.3 Mondelēz International: The beginning ...... 38
2.3.4 Dream - Values ...... 38
2.3.5 SWOT analysis ...... 39
2.3.6 A global snacks powerhouse ...... 41
2.3.7 Revenue ...... 41
2.3.8 Stakeholders ...... 43
2.3.9 Analyzing the Industry ...... 43
2.3.10 Conclusions from external analysis ...... 48
CHAPTER 3: QUESTIONNAIRE ...... 49
3.1 Method ...... 50
3.1.1 Participants ...... 50
3.1.2 Procedure ...... 54
3.1.3 Measures ...... 54
3.2 Interpretation of Data ...... 55
3.3 Summary ...... 84
CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSIONS ...... 86
REFERENCES...... 88
INTERNET ...... 90
APPENDIX ...... 91
4 | P a g e
LIST OF TABLES & FIGURES
Figure 1: A model of strategic corporate re-branding ...... 17 Figure 2: Corporate Marketing elements ...... 23 Figure 3: Comparing corporate communication and corporate marketing ...... 30
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
AKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank first my supervisor, Mr Tsokas, whose encouragement, guidance and support from the initial to the level enabled me to realize my research project. Moreover, this project would not have been possible unless interviewees' collaboration for the survey. Lastly, I offer my regards to all of those who supported me during the completion of my project (friends, librarians, lecturers).
Petros Dimitrakakos
6 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this research project was to identify the impact of Kraft foods rebranding on consumer’s perception of corporate brand image. We decided to focus on this subject because it concerned one of the most famous FMCG companies of the world but also because it is interesting to understand if Kraft Foods reputation and image were strong enough to not have been affected by a strategic change as rebranding. We want to examine whether the consumption of the Kraft Foods products was affected, or the product brands were strong enough to overpass the corporate rebranding. Therefore our research question was: If there is a connection between the corporate brand and the product brands and specifically if the consumer behavior was affected due to the corporate rebranding? To achieve our research question, we decided to establish a quantitative method based on questionnaire. Furthermore, we chose to administrate these questionnaires on Internet and face-to-face in streets and stores from a diverse audience inside Greece. These surveys enabled us to answer to our research question and also to achieve our objectives.
7 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
8 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
1.1. Study Approach
Concerning our study approach, we decided to focus on a specific change in Kraft Foods life, which is its rebranding. Conversely, we wanted to understand and measure consequences on corporate image, measure if any, according to consumer’s point of view and our research question was the following: If there is a connection between the corporate brand and the product brands and specifically if the consumer behavior was affected due to the corporate rebranding? To answer to our research question, we will make some researches about the subject in order to know what academics have written on the subject. This information constitutes our second chapter, which is the literature review. Moreover, we will make a deep examination on the Case of Mondelēz International on a global level. Besides, in the third chapter which is the Questionnaire we will enunciate our research objectives and the method (Research Design, Research Method, Research Approach). Moreover, it includes the interpretation of data, which will give us the answer to the research question. Therefore, we finish with the last chapter, which is the conclusion of the literature review and the data findings.
9 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
10 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
Rebranding Marketing
2.1.1 Rebranding Marketing
Re-branding may occur in different levels in organizations; corporate, business unit, or product level (Muzellec and Lambkin, 2006). Product re-branding is a widely studied area in the marketing discipline, but corporate re-branding is quite a new phenomenon in an academic context. The literature gives a variety of definitions of what corporate re-branding is and what issues are included in it. Therefore the type of corporate re-branding is examined first. Daly and Moloney (2004) describe that the level of change in corporate brand may include minor, intermediate or complete change. According to them, the minor changes are about aesthetics, and vary from a simple face lift to restyling or revitalizing the brand which may need a change. Intermediate change is about repositioning, and use of marketing tactics, especially communication and customer service techniques to favorably reposition an existing brand name, thus giving it a new image. In complete change, the name is new to stakeholders and they do not know what the brand stands for. Values and image of the new brand are communicated to all stakeholders through an integrated marketing communications campaign. Daly and Moloney (2004) call complete change rebranding. Stuart and Muzellec (2004) suggest a continuum of corporate rebranding varying from evolutionary changes in slogan or logo only, to revolutionary change incorporating the elements of name, logo and slogan. They suggest that the types of changes made by corporate re-branders fall into three categories; name, logo, and slogan change. They suggest that permutations possible are a) name and logo, b) name, logo and slogan, c) logo only, d) logo and slogan, e) slogan only. They do not clarify why name only cannot change. According to them, change in only one of the elements will result in evolutionary change to the brand, whereas changing name, logo and slogan simultaneously will cause revolutionary change. Muzellec & Lambkin (2006) suggest that corporate re-branding occurs either in an evolutionary or revolutionary manner. Evolutionary rebranding describes a fairly minor development in the company’s positioning and aesthetics that is so gradual that it is hardly perceptible to outside observers. Revolutionary rebranding describes a major, identifiable change in positioning and aesthetics that fundamentally redefines the company. According to them, this change is usually symbolized by a change of name.
11 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
Lomax and Mador (2006) present a typology of branding choices on the basis of whether the name will be existing or new, and whether brand values and attributes (v&a) will be existing or new. They describe the options as re-iterating (existing name – existing v&a), re- defining (existing name – new v&a), re-naming (new name – existing v&a), and re-starting (new name – new v&a). In re-iterating, name and values are congruent and address client needs. In re-defining, values and attributes are changed to meet either external or internal identified concerns. If nothing is changed they are congruent and address client needs. If both are new, it is re-starting. All in all, corporate re-branding may vary from minor, evolutionary changes in position and aesthetics to revolutionary changes in corporate name, values, attributes and positioning (Ahonen, M. 2008).
2.1.2 Rebranding marketing contrasted to branding marketing
Rebranding marketing lacks of academic background. For this reason, rebranding marketing can be contrasted to branding marketing, which refers to the initial coherent articulation of the brand and can occur at any time. Rebranding marketing refers to the marketing plan of disjunction or change between an initially formulated brand and a new formulation. The change in brand vision can be referred to as brand revision. According to Chai-Lee Goi, Mei-TehGoi, (2011), although there are some common issues, the virtues of a rebranding marketing framework include: explicit focus on how and to what extent the brand should be changed in the frame of marketing; emphasis on justifying the brand revision – both benefits and costs; greater sensitivity to potential internal resistance to the brand change and thus a need for a well-structured change management program to get brand buy-in; and highlighting the need to alert all stakeholders to the new brand.
2.1.3 Reasons of Rebranding
Before getting in depth on our main focus of this chapter we should examine the reasons that lead to rebranding.
12 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
There are just about as many reasons to rebrand a business as there are ways to do it. Some of those reasons are positive (two organisations have merged or a company has significantly expanded its offering), while others are less (the current brand has been tainted in some way or has become outdated). Corporate mergers will often result in complete rebrands. When organisations have failed to establish a brand, or have been through any kind of scandal, total rebranding may also be in order. In these cases, the intent is to erase any previous brand identity and replace it with completely new imagery and messaging. In situations when a brand has been firmly established yet is simply outdated or needs to be refreshed due to the addition of new products or services, tweaking is required, rather than a fullblown rebrand. In these cases, marketer do not want to eliminate the brand value that's been developed over the years, but merely make subtle changes to update it or make it representative of an expanded offering. Another word, it is all about update a tired brand or creates an entirely new identity with a smart rebranding strategy (J. Williams, 2006). Duncan (2007) also has highlighted that there are many reasons to rebrand. The need for rebranding must first be determined and should be based on the premise that something has changed in the business mix that dictates a need for evolving the brand. To keep up with the times and keep pace with changing consumer needs (e.g. services, accessibility, convenience, choice, fashion and technology). Because a brand has become old-fashioned and is in danger of stagnation or is already in a state of erosion. Due to fierce competition or a fast-changing environment. As a means of blocking or outmaneuvering competitors, or a way of handling increased price competitiveness. As a result of globalisation. As a result of mergers and acquisitions. In order to generally improve a brand's competitiveness by creating a common sense of purpose and unified identity, building staff morale and pride, as well as a way of attracting the best talent or even a way of testing new markets or products. To decrease business development and operational costs, or a way of countering declining profitability or consumer confidence. To signal a change in direction, focus, attitude or strategy. Where there are complex product portfolios, considerable advertising and branding clutter, media proliferation and subsequent audience fragmentation. To capitalise on new opportunities or innovative mediums such as the Internet.
13 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
2.1.4 From Corporate Branding to Corporate Rebranding
According to Bill Merrilees and Dale Miller (2008), in corporate branding, major classic works include Olins (1978, 1994), Gregory (1991), Dowling (1994), Fombrun (1996) and Ind (1997). Although invaluable and creative, they tend to follow a relatively traditional marketing communication and planning framework. More recent books (Balmer and Greyser, 2003; Olins, 2003; Ind, 2004; Schultz et al., 2005; Schroeder and Salzer-Morling, 2006; de Chernatony, 2006) have focused on nuances such as living the brand, the role of experiences and internal branding. Recent special issues of journals on the topic have extended the debate (Schultz and de Chernatony, 2002; Balmer, 2003; Balmer et al., 2006; Melewar and Karaosmanoglu, 2006). Although we refer to corporate brands, very similar properties apply to organisational brands, service brands (Berry, 2000) and retailer brands (Birtwistle and Freathy, 1998), with a high degree of interchangeability across the terms. One way of summarising the corporate brand literature is to contrast the nature of corporate brands with product brands. Firstly, the organisation features more strongly and explicitly in corporate brands (Hatch and Schultz, 2003). Culture and structure are critical for corporate brands, not simply for implementation reasons, but as a major part of the brand essence. Another way of expressing the organisational aspect is to emphasise the role of internal processes or internal branding as part of corporate branding (Bergstrom et al., 2002; Gapp and Merrilees, 2006). Secondly, corporate brands are likely to be more central and strategic, controlled by higher-level management such as the Chief Executive Officer (Hatch and Schultz, 2003). Thirdly, corporate brands are likely to be more abstract, representing higher-order values (like freedom or purity) compared to more functionally based product brands (Urde, 2003). Fourthly, corporate brands are more complex, with potentially different brand meanings across different stakeholders (Balmer and Greyser, 2002). Most relevant literature deals with specific issues such as the potential gap between the espoused corporate brand and the actual brand image stakeholders may have of a company (Davies and Chun, 2002). However, Knox and Bickerton (2003) and Hatch and Shultz (2001, 2003) give useful frameworks for integrating components of corporate branding.
Corporate rebranding can be contrasted to corporate branding, which refers to the initial coherent articulation of the corporate brand and can occur at any time. Corporate rebranding refers to the disjunction or change between an initially formulated corporate
14 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS brand and a new formulation. The change in brand vision can be referred to as brand revision. The process of executing the revision throughout the organization would most likely require a change management process. With corporate branding, organisational issues may well involve some changes, but the emphasis is on getting all units to adhere consistently to policy and procedure specifications (such as common letterheads or business cards, or the use of colours). However, with corporate rebranding, all units need to be moved from one mindset/culture to another. Although there are some common issues, the virtues of a corporate rebranding framework include: explicit focus on how and to what extent the corporate brand should be changed; emphasis on justifying the brand revision – both benefits and costs; greater sensitivity to potential internal resistance to the brand change and thus a need for a well-structured change management program to get brand buy-in; and highlighting the need to alert all stakeholders to the new brand.
Shifting focus from corporate branding to corporate rebranding, we find less research or consensus. An early academic paper on rebranding was Berry’s (1988) summary of Ogilvy and Mather’s brand revitalisation program. A common trigger for revitalizing brands is under-performance (Kapferer, 1997). Using renaming, a narrow approach to rebranding, both Muzellec et al. (2003) and Muzellec and Lambkin (2006) found that structural factors such as mergers and acquisitions were the main drivers of rebranding, with brand image improvement ranked lower. Before focusing on rebranding success factors, we note Stuart and Muzellec’s (2004) argument that rebranding may not be the solution to some problems. They suggest that rebranding considerations include comprehensive assessment of potential benefits, clarity about what is being signalled, and checking that key stakeholders understand and support the proposed change.
15 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
2.1.5 Strategic corporate rebranding
Corporate re-branding – a change of a corporate brand with the goal of improving perception of the company by customers, employees and investors – is a widespread activity. However, from 1995 to 2004, according to Patrick Cettier and Bernd Schmit, (2008) only about half of all re-branding activities were successful. From 1995 to 2004, numerous prominent companies re-branded themselves. Philip Morris became the Altria Group. British Steel turned into Corus. Andersen Consulting changed its name to Accenture. The consulting division of KPMG became Bearing Point. Daimler-Benz, after merging with Chrysler, became Daimler-Chrysler. The UK Post Office switched (briefly) to Consignia and then again to Royal Mail. Paine Webber now operates under the UBS brand. There are numerous others: AOL- Time Warner, Vodafone-Mannesmann, Exxon-Mobil, Deutsche Telekom-Voicestream. Corporate re-branding, which is usually expressed in a corporate name change, is not simply a tactical change in a name or logo. It is an important corporate strategy decision, undertaken as a result of a change in the customer or employee base, new products and services, or a revised strategic position and value proposition. This decision impacts how a firm’s constituents (customers, employees and investors) view the company’s mission, vision and values. Moreover, corporate re-branding results in a broad-based perception and image change. As a result, a well managed re-branding initiative provides many opportunities for the corporation. Yet, corporate re branding also entails risk. The new brand may fail to attract new customers and potentially alienate existing ones. Employees may be attached to the old brand. From a shareholder perspective, returns of the new corporate brand may disappoint. It is therefore pertinent to ask why corporations engage in re-branding in the first place. Moreover, to mitigate risks, it is key to develop an organizational model of the process of corporate re-branding and identify key success factors. The vast literature on brand management has largely ignored corporate re-branding. The focus has been on how to build and manage brand equity, incorporating concepts such as brand core, brand personality and brand values; brand identity; brand architecture; and brand leverage and extensions (Aaker, 1991, 1996; Aaker and Joachimsthaler, 2000; de Chernatony, 2001; Gregory, 2004; Hatch and Schultz, 2001; Keller, 1998). While some have acknowledged the importance of corporate re-branding as well as its complexities and risks (Keller, 1998; Kapferer, 2004), concepts and frameworks for handling this challenge have not been forthcoming (Patrick Cettier and Bernd Schmitt, 2008).
16 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
2.1.6 A model of strategic corporate re-branding
Figure 1: A model of strategic corporate re-branding Source Patrick Cettier and Bernd Schmitt, 2008
Patrick Cettier and Bernd Schmitt (2008), developed a model for strategic corporate rebranding. As Figure 1 shows, they investigated strategic corporate re-branding as an organizational process that must include analyses of both the external and internal corporate domains and provide communications that bridge the two domains. A corporate re-branding initiative is successful only if all three domains are well managed. External domain: Because corporate re-branding will result in a new perception of the company and its competitive position, the key concern for a company as part of the re- branding process needs to be a consideration of how a corporate re-branding will affect its customer base and other key constituents (such as employees and investors). Moreover, a company needs to consider market structure, current and future industry trends/fads and potential competitive moves. Internal domain: Because corporate re-branding also results in change within the organization, re-branding needs favorable starting conditions and employee buy-in. The organization must be ready for change and understand the necessity for it. This requires input from top management as the leaders of the organization, the brand team as the natural owner of the re-branding initiative, key employees who can act as multipliers for the initiative, and the overall workforce who must accept it.
17 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
Communications domain: Finally, only the right media and right communication content and style will ensure success of the re-branding initiative. Communications must target all the constituents involved – both outside and inside the organization. This general conceptual model can help us to identify specific key requirements that need to be met to make re-branding a success: First, re-branding must be sensitive to external triggers and pressures. Since all the external factors in the model (market structure, customer base, competition and trends/fads) are dynamic factors that are in constant flux, it is key to engage in strategic corporate re-branding for the right reasons (based on an analysis of these factors) and at the right time. Second, corporate re-branding must be managed well internally. Senior management must support the effort; employee-buy-in is key, and a brand team must manage the process. Also, as we will see, research must be commissioned and the organization must grasp the opportunities that re-branding provides. Finally, starting with the right name, communications must be executed well, both externally and internally, in terms of media, content and style. By looking at a range of cases where these requirements of the model were met, we have identified in more detail seven key success factors for corporate re-branding. As we will see later on, these factors are usually not present or even deliberately ignored when re-branding initiatives fail.
18 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
2.1.7 Rebranding Cases
Before getting in depth into the case of Kraft foods rebranding, let us go through some Best Case examples of rebranding and some cases of failure that helped us understand the factors and the conditions that define a rebranding process as a good example. Since there are not many academic references on rebranding cases, best cases and cases of failure will give us a better understanding on corporate rebranding during the last years. Through this examination, we will also understand the factors of successful rebranding marketing actions which luck theoretical background.
2.1.7.1 Best Corporate Rebranding Cases
UBS (Union Bank of Switzerland) traces its roots back to the 1860s. The bank has pursued a long tradition of mergers and acquisitions. Two significant corporate actions occurred: the merger with Swiss Bank Corporation in 1998 and the acquisition of Paine Webber in 2000. Within this timeframe, UBS developed from a regional bank into a global player with revenues exceeding 37 billion and 70,000 employees around the globe. Still, its businesses were not globally integrated. Many different brands (such as Brinson Partners, Phillips & Drew, Warburg Dillon Read, Paine Webber, and the UBS brand itself) confused clients and employees and prevented UBS from grasping its full global potential. Therefore, in 2002 UBS decided to introduce the UBS brand globally to achieve consistency. By 2004, implementation of the single-brand strategy was accomplished (Gloger, 2004). Three years after the announcement of the single-brand strategy, UBS’s share price had soared by over 70 per cent (almost double the increase of the bank’s composite share price on average, and more than three times that of the FTSE 100). In 2003 – for the first time – UBS made the list of the 100 most valuable brands at position 45 with a brand value of about $6.5 billion. In 2005, its brand value had increased by $1.1 billion to $7.6 billion. In the important US market, UBS achieved a 50 per cent increase in advertising awareness and a 10 per cent increase in brand awareness among its private and business customers.
19 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
2.1.7.2 Case of Failure
As stated earlier, except from successful cases of re-branding, we met unsuccessful ones and found that in the case of failures several components and needs during rebranding were usually not met. The British Post Office’s change to Consignia in 2001 provides an example. Wrong reasons, wrong timing and lack of communication sensitivity stand out as core reasons for the failure. Management changed the well known and trusted name of the Post Office into Consignia, in part because other UK companies had dropped traditional names associated with an earlier, nationalized, era (for example, National Power had changed to Innogy and British Steel to Corus); this was hardly a strong reason for corporate re-branding. Moreover, the timing was poor: in 2001 the Post Office was in the midst of a heavy restructuring program and was under immense competitive pressure from new entrants into the market. Finally, instead of designing a sensitive communication strategy, CEO John Roberts publicly admitted in a TV interview that the name had no meaning. In 2002, after heavy customer and employee opposition, the company was ‘re-re-branded’ to Royal Mail. There are numerous other cases that indicate that the key success factors are missing when re-branding efforts fail. For example, Condor, a successful German charter airline, changed its name to Thomas Cook in 2002 as part of the group’s strategy to use Thomas Cook as the international leisure and travel brand across all business units. The name was changed back to Condor in 2004 after facing customer criticism and a significant slowdown in business. Management underestimated customers’ attachment to the brand. Also, there was no convincing reason (other than internal efficiency and the notion that a single brand is always better) for the re-branding of a well-established charter airline. Another striking example of re-branding failure occurred in the US after the acquisition of the bank First Interstate by Wells Fargo in 1996. As some commentators put it: ‘Wells Fargo’s executives were so eager to quickly complete the re-branding and integration of the two banks that they failed to properly anticipate, strategize, and prepare for the immense amount of work required to integrate First Interstate’s operational systems, management style and employee culture. In 1998, Wells Fargo was acquired by Norwest Corporation for a bargain price. A final example is Windscale, the British nuclear power station that re- branded itself as Sellafield after a history of safety hazard incidents. This was a weak attempt to disguise a tarnished reputation with a simple re-branding. The re-branding was not successful in diverting public opinion.
20 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
2.2 Corporate Marketing
Corporate marketing is an area which, in recent years has received growing attention namely: Balmer, 2001a; 2008a,b; Balmer and Greyser, 2003; 2006; Balmer et al., 2011; He, 2008; He and Balmer, 2007a,b). Corporate marketing refers to (Balmer, 2011):
[. . .] a customer, stakeholder, societal and CSR/Ethical focussed philosophy enacted via an organisational-wide orientation and culture. A corporate marketing rational complements the goods and services logic. It is informed by identity-based views of the firm: this is a perspective, which accords importance to corporate identities and corporate brands. The latter provide distinctive platforms from which multi-lateral, organizational and stakeholder/societal relationships are fostered to all-round advantage.
Corporate marketing represents a paradigm shift in terms of marketing thought in that it has both customer and stakeholder foci. Furthermore, corporate marketing accords importance to the corporate level constructs of corporate identity, corporate communications, corporate branding, corporate culture, and corporate reputation, and is informed by the view that these institutional traits should be meaningfully aligned with identity based perspectives (Balmer, 2008a; 2009). In the context of Balmer’s development work on the corporate marketing mix (Balmer, 1998; 2008a,b), the corporate identity concept is accorded particular prominence. This is because it provides a key means by which corporate marketing activities can be understood. According to Balmer (2009, pp. 569-571), corporate marketing represents a natural denouement of the integrationist tradition that has characterized the fields of design (integrated design), communication (integrated corporate communications) and identity studies (the integration of identity-based views of the corporation). The strategic nature of corporate marketing – along with identity based views of the firm (Balmer, 2008a) – are prominent themes within the literatures cited above. (Hong-Wei He John M.T. Balmer, 2013)
21 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
2.2.1 Corporate Marketing elements
It is a fact that corporate marketing is a term that appeared in the last decades but has developed models and figures in order to depict its role and its elements. Figure 2 depicts the six elements (6Cs) of Balmer’s (2006) corporate marketing mix and elucidates the importance of each element by ascribing a key question which underpins each of the six elements. The disciplinary foundations for each of the six elements are additionally outlined. Again, we reiterate that we regard corporate marketing as more of a philosophy rather than a function. For this reason the mix elements should be seen as informing an organizational- wide philosophy rather than as encompassing a mix of elements to be orchestrated by a department of corporate marketing (John M.T. Balmer Stephen A. Greyser, 2006).In essence, the philosophy of corporate-level marketing should permeate how people in the organization think and behave on its behalf. (Table I compares the 6Cs of the corporate marketing mix with the more extended 11Ps model of the mix).
Character Those factors that, in their totality, make one entity distinct from another. These include key tangible and intangible assets of the organization as well as organizational activities, markets served, corporate ownership and structure, organizational type, corporate philosophy and corporate history.
Culture This refers to the collective feeling of employees as to what they feel they are in the setting of the entity. These beliefs are derived from the values, beliefs and assumptions about the organization and its historical roots and heritage. Individuals may, in part, define themselves in terms of organizational membership and may, in turn, feel that they, as individuals, share common values with the organization. Culture is important since it provides the context in which staff engage with each other and with other groups such as customers: employees represent the “front line” of the organisation.
Communication Corporate communications relates to the various outbound communications channels deployed by organisations to communicate with customers and other constituencies. At its most comprehensive (total corporate communications) it also takes into account the
22 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS communications effects of management, employee and product behaviour and of word-of mouth and media/competitor commentary (Balmer and Greyser, 2003, p. 125).
Conceptualisations This refers to perceptions (conceptualisations) held of the corporate brand by customers and other key stakeholder groups. The latent perception of the organization held by the above will affect their view of and their behaviour towards the organisation. Such conceptualizations of the organisation will, of course, differ between different groups and account needs to be taken of this.
Source: Balmer (2006) Figure 2: Corporate Marketing elements
23 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
Constituencies Corporate marketing recognises takes that many customers also belong to one or indeed many organisational constituencies or stakeholder groups (employees, investors, local community, etc.) and also comes with a realisation that the success of an organisation (and in some cases a “license” to operate) is dependent on meeting the wants and needs of such groups.
Covenant A corporate brand is underpinned by a powerful (albeit informal) contract, which can be compared to a covenant in that customers and other stakeholder groups often have a religious-like loyalty to the corporate brand. Whereas legal ownership of a corporate brand is vested in an entity, its emotional ownership (and therein its substantial value) resides with those who have a close association with the brand (Balmer, 2005). Of course, different groups and individuals may have different expectations associated with the institutional brand.
24 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
2.2.2 Corporate Marketing Mix
The corporate marketing mix has received little attention with the exception of Balmer. Balmer extended McCarthy's (1960) four Ps to ten Ps, so as to encompass the myriad elements which need to be orchestrated when the marketing concept is applied at the corporate level (see below). However, there is a problem with this mix in that unlike McCarthys four Ps, the ten Ps are difficult to recall.
The following table is based on The 6Cs of corporate marketing (Balmer,2006) and on the 11Ps of corporate marketing (Balmer,1998)
The 6Cs of The 11Ps of Explanation corporate corporate marketing marketing (Balmer,1998) (Balmer,2006) Character Philosophy and ethos How the organisation is constituted. What the organisation stands for, the way it undertakes its work and activities Product What the organisation makes and does Price The emotion and capital assets of the organisation. The valuation of its brands (corporate, services and product). What it charges for its products and services. The share price. Staff salaries Place Distribution and organisational relationships in terms of the selling and distribution of products and services. (Franchising, outsourcing, licensing) Performance Quality of products and services. Standards vis-a` -vis issues of governance, ethics and social responsibility Positioning The organisation’s position relative to its competitors
25 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
(size, geographical coverage, product and service range) Culture Personality The critical role of personnel vis-a` -vis corporate marketing activities. The shared (as well as differentiated) meanings accorded to the organization by personnel including strength of identification with the organisation) Communication Promotion Co-ordinated corporate communications (corporate advertising, corporate PR, visual identification etc.) Constituencies People In addition to customers: the organisation’s internal and external constituencies and communities (the latterboundary spans constituencies) Conceptualisations Perception The images and reputations held of the organisation by groups, communities and by individuals Covenant Promise The expectations associated with the corporate brand (stakeholder perspective) and the promise underpinning the corporate brand (organisational perspective) Table 1: Corporate Marketing Mix Own elaboration
26 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
2.2.3 Characteristics of Corporate Marketing
The defining characteristics of corporate marketing are as follows (Balmer, 2011, pp. 1340-1): it is an explicit corporate-rather than product or service-orientation (as such both the corporate identity and the corporate brand are of critical importance); it is a philosophy which has a customer/stakeholder, CSR/ethical and societal foci; it is enacted via a corporate-wide culture; it is a philosophy that is concerned not merely with the present and prospective future but is mindful of the past (for instance the inheritance bequeathed to an organization by its owners, founders, etc.); it is informed by a corporate-level gestalt (appreciates the meaningful contributions to the corporate marketing by comprehending key corporate-level marketing constructs such as corporate communication, corporate identity, corporate brands, etc.); it can be revealed and apprised by adopting an identity based view of the firm and by, in addition, adopting an identity based view of corporate brands; it recognises that corporate marketing is multidisciplinary in scope; it acknowledges the dissipation of the traditional internal/external boundary divide/s of organisations; it is closely aligned to stakeholder theory; it accords importance to personnel; and it has a broad application: it is applicable to business-to business contexts for example is germane to all entities.
2.2.4 Comparing corporate marketing with traditional (product) marketing
To reiterate, there are some fundamental differences between corporate marketing and traditional marketing (Balmer, 2009, 2011): Traditional marketing is oriented to consumers and products, while corporate marketing has an explicit organisational focus that includes a wide range of stakeholders and societal ethical issues.
27 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
Traditional marketing has a prospective future orientation, while corporate marketing has not only a future but also present and past orientation, as it focus on societal concerns of all type of stakeholders. Traditional marketing has mainly a product focus, while corporate marketing has mainly an institutional focus (in terms of focussing on corporate identity and the corporate brand). Traditional marketing has bilateral – and mutually beneficial – exchange relationships with consumers, while corporate marketing has a multi-lateral multi- beneficial exchange with all stakeholders and society. The cultural orientation of traditional marketing has an explicit customer orientation, while the cultural orientation of corporate marketing is explicitly toward all types of stakeholders and ethical/societal issues. For traditional marketing CSR/ethical concerns are optional, while for corporate marketing these are central. Traditional marketing can be viewed as a function under the marketing department, while corporate marketing is viewed as a co-coordinating function at the boardroom level.
2.2.5 Corporate Communication
Without the need of identifying in depth the elements and the context around corporate communication in this thesis, we would like to present a general approach on it so, later on, we may proceed on comparing the two terms, corporate communication and corporate marketing, as it seems that in many cases have similarities and differences. Balmer and Greyser (2003, pp. 139-52) – in their scrutiny of the corporate communications domain – note the foundations of the territory, arguably, can be found in the work of practitioners. Many, of course, have a background in marketing communications and in advertising. According to their analysis, of note is the legendary English practitioner David Bernstein, whose pioneering work (Bernstein, 1984) appears to be influential in moulding the world-view of the first wave of corporate communications scholars such as, for example, van Riel (1995). Balmer and Greyser, for instance, note the saliency of Bernstein’s models and frameworks on the domain as a means of initially understanding the domain. For instance, Balmer and Greyser have updated Bernstein’s famous corporate communications wheel so that it has a broader utility for contemporary corporations and reflects contemporary concerns (Balmer and Greyser, 2003, p. 141).
28 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
Corporate communication is considered to be a management function having three main overall objectives. Corporate communication is seen to be important in terms of its roles vis-a`-vis maintaining favourable inter-organisational relationships with groups upon which the company is dependent (van Riel, 1995; Cornelissen, 2011); evaluating social trends and formulating corporate policies that can help the company innovate and proactively adapt to changes in society (Bernays, 1923); integrating all communications under one unique strategy so to support marketing activities (Schultz et al., 1993; Caywood, 1997; Kitchen and de Pelsmacker, 2004). Corporate communications, too, represents the nexus between the corporate identity and corporate reputation (Gray and Balmer, 1998). In their article, Balmer and Gray conclude that corporate communication should not merely be viewed as a functional activity but a strategic activity in addition. As such, Balmer and Gray (1999) identified three components of total corporate communication and – as shown in their model – this takes account of the communications effects not only of formal communications channels but also that of products, services, management actions, and corporate behaviour. Account should be taken of all of these and they should be in – all things being equal and positive – coordinated (where possible) and in alignment. It also, importantly, acknowledges the importance of third-party communication. These three modes of corporate communication are subsequently elaborated by Balmer (2001a, p. 253) and Balmer and Greyser (2003, p. 125). The authors note the importance of and argue for the need to consider both horizontal and vertical modes of communication integration in terms of congruency not only through channels but – sometimes – over time. The three dimensions of total corporate communications are as follows: primary communications – the communications effects of products, services, management, staff and corporate behaviour; secondary communications – the communication effects of controlled forms of communications (similar to integrated communications); and tertiary communications – the communications effects of communication given by third parties such as competitor and media commentary, the media and that from interest groups. Finally, Balmer and Gray note that corporate communications total corporate communications approach – taking account of primary, secondary and tertiary communication – provides a tripartite bridge between an organisation’s identity and corporate image and reputation. In short, it represents the nexus between corporate identity and corporate reputation (Gray and Balmer, 1998).
29 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
2.2.6 Comparing corporate communication and corporate marketing
Based on the overview presented of main theories, concepts, and philosophy beyond corporate communication and corporate marketing, we are able to identify the following common or different grounds between the analytical form, objectives and focus of these two disciplines, as Figure 2 shows.
Figure 3: Comparing corporate communication and corporate marketing Source: Laura Illia John M.T. Balmer, (2012)
30 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
2.2.6.1 Similarities
They have an institutional focus. The accord importance to – albeit to a more significant degree in corporate marketing – corporate identity (an institution’s defining attributes). They have a clear stakeholder/customer agency. They recognise the critical importance of personnel. They note the importance of CSR and ethics. The provide managers with analytical/instrumental tools, enabling them to take strategic decisions relating to the institution and their multiple identities. The stress the importance of identifying gaps between who the company is, who the company wants to be, and how others see the company. They focus on both communication and behaviours, with the final aim of reducing the gaps between them. They take into account the various ways in which communications relating about a firm are conveyed (content of a message, behaviour, product performance, etc.). They take into consideration that everything a company says, makes or does – de facto – communicates.
2.2.6.2 Differences
Corporate communication in the main tends to be viewed as a stand-alone discipline and it is the exception rather than the rule that corporate communications approaches (for understandable reasons) have recourse to marketing or, more particularly, to corporate marketing. In corporate marketing contexts, however, corporate communication is viewed as one component of the corporate marketing mix, albeit a critical one. It is seen as the nexus linking corporate identity with the corporate reputation and the corporate brand. Whereas corporate marketing regards identity (corporate identity) as a tangible, legal, and economic construct, the corporate communications domain typically views identity to be socially constructed and, in this sense, mirrors the perspective normally espoused within the organisational behaviour field vis-a` -vis the organizational identity construct.
31 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
Corporate communication is primarily seen as a management function, whereas corporate marketing is viewed as a corporate-wide philosophy. The boundaries of these areas are informed by their respective traditions. Corporate communication is informed by various communications perspectives, whereas corporate marketing is informed by economics, psychology, jurisprudence and sociology, as well as by the communication disciplines. Corporate communication, owing to its historical links with PR, gives greater coverage – but not necessarily greater importance – to media, public opinion and activists. Corporate communication is a discipline that is much more fragmented than corporate marketing, as it includes many different approaches to communication, from the transmission model to the identity communication model. Corporate marketing, in contrast, following long-standing marketing traditions, aims to synthesise different perspectives, constructs and theories into a whole so that it is memorable, salient, and effective. (Laura Illia John M.T. Balmer, 2012)
32 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
2.3 An overview of the Case of Mondelez
Mondelēz International is a new $36bn global snacking company, headquartered in Deerfield, Illinois (near Chicago), with a European headquarters in Zurich, Switzerland. On 1 October 2011 at 17.00 hrs EDT (00.01 CET, 2 October), Kraft Foods Inc.spun off of its North American grocery business. Concurrent with the spin-off, Kraft Foods Inc. changed its name to Mondelēz International, Inc. Kraft Foods has been the world’s second largest food and beverage company in the world. It was initially formed in 1932 by Thomas H. Mclnnerney and at the moment it is headquartered at Northfield, Illinois, US. Its current Chairman and CEO is Irene Rosenfeld. The company operates currently in more than 150 countries and it’s number of employees is estimated at around 100.000. As fas as main competitors are concerned, Nestle, Pepsico and General Mills are among the first that competes with.Cadbury is the world’s second largest confectionary company and was founded by John Cadbury in 1824. Headquartered in Cadbury House in the Uxbridge Business Park in Uxbridge, London, Cadbury started producing the world famous Dairy Milk Chocolate in 1905. In 1969 the Cadbury Group merged with Schweppes and was taken over by Kraft Foods in 2010. As main competitors Cadbury faces Hershey’s, Mars, and Nestle.
33 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
2.3.1 Reasons of rebranding
The reasons of rebranding of Kraft Foods, as pointed out in the official press release of the Mondelēz International, are met by “tremendous opportunities for growth as consumer demand for snacks increases around the world”. The North American grocery business seems to have a remarkable set of iconic brands, high margins and the ability to generate significant cash flow. Creating two independent companies seems to be providing greater long term potential for both businesses. Successful growth depends on extending into new markets and developing new products that meet very specific consumer demands. It is well- known that company’s grocery brands and snacking brands respond to different needs and have their own unique opportunities. By separating the snacking business from the North American grocery business, each company can be more focused in its approach to growth and innovation. “Mondelēz” evokes the idea of a world of delicious products. The name is derived from the Latin word for world (monde) and a fanciful word expressing deliciousness (delēz). The name was selected following an employee naming competitionand was inspired by two suggestions, one from an employee in Europe and the other from North America.
2.3.2 Kraft-Cadbury: hostile takeover
It took quite a lot of time and negotiations for Kraft foods and Cadbury to reach a common agreement as far as hostile takeover concerned. On September 2009 Kraft foods offered 13 bill Euros. Almost exactly two years later in August 2011, Cadbury was the final acquisition necessary to allow Kraft to be restructured and indeed split into two companies by the end of 2012: a grocery business worth approximately $16bn; and a $32bn global snacks business. Kraft needed Cadbury to provide scale for the snacks business, especially in emerging markets such as India. The challenge for Kraft was how to buy Cadbury when it was not for sale.
34 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
Companies Global Snacks North American Grocery Approximate Revenue $32 billion* $16 billion*
Snapshot High-growth global snacks Leading North American grocery
business business Leading global brands Strong Portfolio of iconic brands presence in fast-growing Highly-competitive retail presence developing markets and Cost leadership instant consumption Commitment to innovation
channels
Business Kraft Foods Europe US Beverages Units Kraft Foods Developing US Cheese & Dairy
Markets US Grocery North America: Snacks and US Oscar Mayer Confectionery, and Non-snack categories in Canada and Foodservice Foodservice Non-snacks portion (25% of A number of brands will continue to revenue) would consist operate in a licensing arrangement primarily of powdered with Global Snacks beverages and coffee outside #1 share in 12 of 15 categories
the US Certain brands will continue to operate in a licensing arrangement with North American Grocery Approximately 42% in developing markets
35 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
Why Are Next logical step in the transformation of Kraft Foods We Doing o Revitalized our iconic brands This? o Transformed the business portfolio and footprint
. Built a global snacks powerhouse through both organic growth and acquisitions . Strengthened the North American business through select divestitures and improved focus on Power Brands We believe the next phase of development and growth requires a different approach, which will focus on the distinct priorities of each business. o Global snacks business and North American grocery business now differ in future strategic priorities, growth profiles and operational needs o They are ready to stand on their own - this will allow them to operate according to strategies and targets that make the most sense for their distinct business profiles. Creating two independent companies will make the most of each business: o Enables focus on distinct strategic priorities o Increases flexibility to realize full potential o Provides even greater opportunities for our people and brands o Opportunity to optimize total returns to shareholders
Table 2: Kraft-Cadbury, Hostile takeover Source: mondelezinternational.com/releases *Revenue figures are estimates based on 2010 Kraft Foods actual results adjusted for divestitures.
36 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
By the time of the offer for Cadbury, kept being the world’s second-largest food confectionary company, with seven brands that each generated annual revenues of more than $1bn. Since its foundation by John Cadbury in 1824 in England, had also grown through mergers and demergers. It too had recently embarked on a strategy that was just beginning to show results. Ownership of the company was 49 per cent from the US, despite its UK listing and headquarters. Only 5 per cent of its shares were owned by short-term traders at the time of the Kraft bid. Sir Roger Carr, the chairman of Cadbury, was experienced in takeover defences and immediately put together a strong defensive advisory team. Its first act was to brand the 745 pence-per-share offer “unattractive”, saying that it “fundamentally undervalued the company”. The team made clear that even if the company had to succumb to an unwanted takeover, almost any other confectionery company (Nestlé, Ferrero and Hershey were all mentioned) would be preferred as the buyer. In addition, Lord Mandelson, then the UK’s business secretary, publicly declared that the government would oppose any buyer who failed to “respect” the historic confectioner. Cadbury’s own defence documents stated that shareholders should reject Kraft’s offer because the chocolate company would be “absorbed into Kraft’s low growth conglomerate business model – an unappealing prospect that sharply contrasts with the Cadbury strategy of a pure play confectionery company”. Little did Cadbury’s management know that Kraft’s plan was to split in two to eliminate its conglomerate nature and become two more focused businesses, thereby creating more value for its shareholders. The Cadbury team determined that a majority of shareholders would sell at a price of roughly 830 pence a share. A deal was struck between the two chairmen on January 18 2010 at 840 pence per share plus a special 10 pence per share dividend. This was approved by 72 per cent of Cadbury shareholders two weeks later. In any takeover, especially a cross-border deal in which the acquired company is as well known as Cadbury was in the UK, the transaction will be front-page news. In this case, it was the lead business story for at least four months. Fortunately, this deal had no monopoly or competition issues, otherwise those regulators could also have been involved. But aside from any regulators, most other commentators will largely be distractions. It is important for the acquiring company’s management and advisers to stay focused on the deal itself and the real decision-makers – the shareholders of the target company. As this deal demonstrates, these shareholders may not (and often will not) be the long-term traditional owners of the target company stock, but rather very rational hedge funds and other arbitrageurs (in Cadbury’s case, owning 31 per cent of the shares at the end), who are swayed only by the
37 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS offer price and how quickly the deal can be completed. Other stakeholders may have legitimate concerns that need to be addressed but this can usually be done after the deal is completed, as Kraft did. (Scott Moeller, 2012)
2.3.3 Mondelēz International: The beginning
Mondelēz International has approximately 36$ billion in revenue and is a global snacks powerhouse. It launched on Oct. 1, 2012 and is comprised of the global snacking and food brands of the former Kraft Foods Inc. With 100,000 employees worldwide and annual revenues of approximately $36 billion, Mondelēz International is the world’s largest maker of chocolate, biscuits, candy and powdered beverages, and the second-largest maker of gum and coffee. It is estimated to own consumers in 170 countries reach. Nowadays, Mondelēz International has leading positions in fast-growing categories in every major region of the world and an advantaged geographic footprint with significant presence in Developing Markets such as Brazil, Russia, India and China. As far as products are concerned, Mondelēz International owns a portfolio of the world’s famous snacks brands and possesses proven global innovation platforms, strong routes to market and world-class talent and capabilities. During the last years, Mondelēz International focuses on building global power brands and at the same time focuses on leveraging global innovation platforms across regions and revolutionizing selling to serve the immediate consumption channel and the front-of-the- store. Apart from that, Mondelēz International insists on driving efficiencies to expand gross margin and reduce overheads.
2.3.4 Dream - Values
Mondelēz International’dream is to “create delicious moments of joy – and that’s exactly what our tasty snacks do. They’re that stolen moment for just you” (Mondelēz International official website).
According to their values, noted on their official website, they demonstrate seven values.
38 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
“We believe there’s big value in every human connection and in every bond… especially when times get tough. So we…INSPIRE TRUST We believe that it’s up to each of us to do what it takes to drive growth. So we…ACT LIKE OWNERS We believe that complexity crushes the human spirit and that simplicity is the essence of speed. So we…KEEP IT SIMPLE We believe we can’t wait for it to happen: we’ve got to make it happen… now. So we…DISCUSS DECIDE DELIVER We believe honest discussions and direct feedback are essential to making the right decisions, quickly. So we...TELL IT LIKE IT IS We believe in the power of different perspectives and in daring to try new ways. So we are…OPEN AND INCLUSIVE We believe that what makes our workplace great is passion and personality. So we… LEAD FROM THE HEAD AND THE HEART”
2.3.5 SWOT analysis
Strenghts and weaknesses on the company’s environment will give us a perspective of how Mondelēz International had dealt with challenges on the industry and has developed throughout the years from an internal point of view. On the other hand we investigated opportunities and threats of the environment that the company operates in order to gain an overview of its competitive environment.
Strengths It is pointed out the number of the positive sales in all 5 operating segments; snacks, beverages, cheese, grocery, and convenient meals. At the same time the company has high priority and standards on food safety. Also, there is a diverse range of brands and products with strong focus on R&D that leads to sales increase by 2.9% in North American markets on 2014. It also has to be strong reputation and perceived value among customers.
39 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
Weaknesses On the contrary, company faces some weaknesses as well. In particular, there is high risk of contamination in agricultural products and difficulties in launching new brands. Also, it may be considered as a weakness the fact of the female CEO in certain foreign markets. Furthermore, there are margins that depend on commodity prices.
Opportunities As far as opportunities are concerned, one may find increasing sales of organic food and beverages and a higher number of people dining out. What is more, baked goods’ prices have been increased. Also, there are increased trends of flavor enhancer for bottled water. As an opportunity, the growing environmental consensus may lead to increase of sales of quality foods and beverages. Last but not least, there is an increased demand for packaged and processed foods around the world due to change in lifestyles which may be considered as an opportunity.
Threats On the other hand, there are a number of threats that the industry is facing. Due to a weak economy and increased competition, the food processing industry saw an employee reduction. Also, the rising petroleum costs cause an increase in product and manufacturing costs. This, adds to the increased competition for market share in European as well as other global markets, define the industry as highly competitive. As a threat, the difficulty to differentiate product pricing between competitors in the food processing industry, leads to lack of differentiation as a threat in the environment.
40 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
2.3.6 A global snacks powerhouse
It is a fact that Mondelēz International is a global snacks powerhouse and shares sales among biscuits (32%), including salted and other snacks, chocolate (27%), gum and candy (15%), beverages (17%) and cheese and grocery (9%). As far as locations of sales are concerned, Mondelēz International dominates Europe (39% of its sales), North America (20%), Asia Pacific (15%), Latin America (15%) and EEMEA (11%).
Figure 4: “Geographic Presence” Source: mondelezinternational.com/releases
2.3.7 Revenue
Since we investigated into sales, we should examine company’s revenues in different sections and brands. Global biscuit business, chocolate business, coffee and beverage business, gum and candy business, cheese and grocery business are the sub-industries of the main activity of Mondelēz International. Going in depth with these, on the second quarter of 2014, in global biscuits business, Mondelēz International estimates to have revenues of 2.970$ millions and sharing a 35,21% of total revenues. In comparison with Q2 2013 there is a positive 3,56% share, whereas year- to-date revenues in biscuits category show a 0,74% decrease in revenues. All in all, the company is ranked number one in the global biscuit business with brands such as Oreo, LU, Chips Ahoy, Ritz, Club Social and TUC.
41 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
On the global chocolate business the company ranks first as well and during the second Quarter of 2014 the revenues were estimated in 1.969$ and sharing 23.34% of total revenues. In comparison with Q2 2013 there is a decrease of 22,02% and in year-to-date frame a decrease of 1,2% in revenues is estimated. Concluding, Cadbury, Milka and Toblerone have leading positions in chocolate business. During the second quarter of 2014, revenues on the global coffee and beverages business are estimated in 1.509$ and 17,89% share of global revenues is owned by Mondelēz International with brands of Jacobs and Tassimo. In comparison with Q2 2013 there is a 9,19% increase and in year-to-date frame a decrease of 2,33% in revenues in coffee and beverages category that establishes the company as the second share position of the business. Trident and Halls are the brands of Mondelēz International on the gum and candy business. On the second quarter of 2014 their revenues were 1.194$ millions and 14,15% of total Revenues is recorded. In comparison with Q2 2013 there has been a 6,13% increase and in revenues it has been estimated a 7,01% decrease in a year-to-date biscuits category which makes the company owning the second position in the business. Last but not least, on the global cheese and grocery business, Mondelēz International owns 0,974$ millions revenues and 9,41% of total revenues. In comparison with Q2 2013 there is a 2,37% decrease and in year-to-date frame a decrease of 1,85% in revenues in cheese and grocery category that establishes the company as the first share position of the business. The products of the business of cheese and grocery are the Philadelphia, Mayonnaise and Ketchup brands. In millions $ Revenues % of total Rev. Income % Profit Margin North America 1.723 20,42% 269 15,61% Europe 3.379 40,05% 463 13,70% EEMEA 1.008 11,95% 146 14,48% Asia Pacific 1.084 12,85% 111 10,24% Latin America 1.242 14,72% 140 11,27% Table 3: “Segmentation analysis by market / Q2 2014 pt1” Source: mondelezinternational.com/releases
Growth rates % YTD % QTQ Revenue % YTD % QTQ Income Revenue Income North America 1,12% 3,36% 38,66% 32,51%
42 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
Europe 3,24% -5% 25,47% 0% EEMEA -2,98% 20,29% 30,36% 128,13% Asia Pacific -12,58% -11,37% -13,95% -40,96% Latin America -7,24% -8,41% -13,58% 218,18% Table 4: “Segmentation analysis by market / Q2 2014 pt1” Source: mondelezinternational.com/releases
2.3.8 Stakeholders
Mondelēz International operates in a diverse environment and cooperates with diverse stakeholders. Suppliers, government and consumers are the groups that the company attempts to satisfy on an ongoing basis. At the same time, Mondelēz International tries to meet expectations for high return on investments of main shareholders, banks, strategic partners and final customers. The organization gives less power and a passive interest to small shareholders. As “high interest of the organization”, the management of Mondelēz International puts employees that continuously are being kept informed with low power.
2.3.9 Analyzing the Industry
The food industry is a complex, global collective of diverse businesses that supply much of the food energy consumed by the world population. In general, world food retail sales generate over $4 trillion per year and the industry seems that it has evolved greatly over the past twenty years thanks to technological advances, keeping pace with growing demand for foods. This sector calls for greater demand for packaging to ensure safe, fresh, easy-to-use products. In addition to that, food industry drives several other industries such as convenience stores, supermarkets, hypermarkets and gasoline outlets with grocery sections. The 50 leading food manufacturers representing under a fifth of world packaged food sales. The industry keeps developing specialized product lines to remain competitive and lead direct growth rather than the traditional approach of diversifying product portfolios. Mondelēz faces competition from domestic and international companies, smaller regional companies, and generic brands. Some of it’s key competitors are Nestle, Kellogg, Danone, Mars, General Mills and Heinz.
43 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
PEST Analysis For a better approach on the industry we examined the polital – economic – Socio- cultural – technological environment of the company in order to provide an holistic perspective on our research. As far as the Political/Legal environment is concerned we came up with these characteristics: Various government policies on regulations, licensing and labor. Strict legal framework for the certification of food quality and food safety. Liberalization of imports from 3rd world countries (WTO). Opening of new emerging markets (e.g. Latin America, India). On the economic environment The Economic condition concerns growth across different regions. Decreasing purchasing power worldwide due to the global financial crisis. Globalization – increasing competition & new opportunities / threats. Volatility of macroeconomic environment. Global supply and currencies exchange. In the meantime on the Socio-cultural environment we faced: Consumer preferences tend to converge & homogenize Cultural sensitivity Informed consumers seeking value for money. Changing lifestyles Changing habits. On the technological environment there is: Operational excellence (Integrating technology and managing operation, new methods of production & equipment) Big data and solid communication Transport infrastructures
44 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
Porter’s Five forces Analysis
Figure 5: “Porter’s Five forces Analysis” Source: Own elaboration
Threat of new entrants – Low Examining the threats of new entrants we concluded that these of low volume since: The Food sector is a competitive sector Brand Indentity –Powerful brand identity of the existing players developed through advertising and product excellence High Fixed costs Economies of scale are necessary to be competitive Existing competitors have the financial ability to deter new entrants Large amount of capital required Product differentiation Legal barriers exist
Bargaining power of suppliers – Low The bargaining power of suppliers is considered to be low according: Low switching costs Flexibility in the production line, different locations for manufacturing Large number of suppliers Low materials scarcity
45 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
Bargaining power of buyers – High In contrast, as far as the bargaining power of buyers is concerned we estimate it high since there are these elements: Buyers are fragmented Buyers have comparative information about the product in terms of price and quality More demanding customers with product awareness due to internet & globalization Low degree of product differentiation Low switching costs Price Sensitivity Few large buyers (large supermarket chains) have strong bargaining power
Threat of substitutes – Medium The threat of substitute is affecting the environment in a medium base: A large number of potential substitutes for each category of products Low cost substitutes with the same performance Low switching costs to substitutes
Competitive rivalry – High In general, we may conclude that the competitive rivalry is high because of: Already a large number of established players on the market (Nestle, Mars, Conagra) High stakes for the companies because of huge brand identity Price pressure Private label products is an emerging segment canibalizing market share, best price- medium quality Fast market growth which intensifies competition Large size of market allowing competition to grow Competitors are trying to create a sustainable competitive advantage through differentiation or cost leadership High exit barriers keep companies with low return in the market
46 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
Competitors
Today Mondelēz International owns the second leading position in the highly competitive food sector. Nestle is the number one in terms of economic indicators. In particular, Mondelēz International has 53.03B of Market Capital whereas Nestle owns 232.8B in a 716.99M industry as seen below.
Table 5: “Direct Competitor Comparison” Source: Own elaboration
In addition to that, ranking food manufacturers by food sales we conclude on numbers below comparing 5 companies, Nestle, Mondelēz International, Tyson Foods, Inc., ConAgra Foods, Inc., and Danone in order to have an overview of the industry.
Table 6: “Food Manufacturers Ranked by Food Sales ” Source: Own elaboration
47 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
2.3.10 Conclusions from external analysis
From our external analysis we conclude that the industry will experience growth over the coming years. Also, D&E countries are expected to fuel growth in the 4 coming years while weak, consumer confidence and prolonged unemployment continue to plague the industry. What is more, technology (Big Data) is driving change making customers engaged and empowered and leveraging data and analytics to support brand and product management decisions. In general, attractiveness of the industry is high and notices high growth rates with intense competitive pressures. As far as competition is concerned, it expected to invest more capital to drive growth and strict regulations are going to be held regarding food safety & health issues in order to keep high quality on the competition and industry.
48 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
CHAPTER 3: QUESTIONNAIRE
49 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
3.1 Method
3.1.1 Participants
Out of the 181 people participating in the study, the majority were women (70,7%) and only one third of the total sample were men (29,3%) and 152 were living in Athens, while 29 in other urban cities of Greece. Over half of the participants (59,7%) ranged in age between 26 and 40 years, 25,4% of the participants were between 18 and 25 years, while only 27 were over 41 years. The majority reported education beyond high school, with 16% going to college, 42,5 % earning a bachelor’s degree and 28,2 earning a master’s or doctoral degree. of males and 63,5% of females earning a bachelor or graduate degree. A large proportion of the sample were employed in the private (54,7%) and the public (3,9%) section, 14,4% were students, 16,6 % were self- employed and one fifth of the sample were unemployed (6,1%) or retired (4,4%). About half of the participants (47,5%) indicated being single, one third were married (30,9 %) and 34 participants reported being in a long- term relationship; only 2,7 % of the total sample were divorced or widowed. (see Table 1).
50 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
Table 1 Frequencies and percentages of demographic variables (N= 181)
Variables (f) Percentage Gender Male 53 29,3 Female 128 70,7 Age 18-25 46 25,4 26-40 108 59,7 41-55 17 9,4 >56 10 5,5 Family status Single 86 47,5 Long- term relationship 34 18,8 Married 56 30,9 Divorced 3 1,7 Widowed 2 1,1 Profession Student 26 14,4 Public section 7 3,9 Private section 99 54,7 Self- employed 30 16,6 Unemployed 11 6,1 Retired 8 4,4 Region Athens 152 84,0 Thessaloniki 3 1,1 Crete 7 3,9 Other 19 10,5 Education High school 24 13,3 College 29 16,0 University 77 42,5 Master/ PhD 51 28,2
Chart 1 Pie chart of participants’ age
51 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
Chart 2 Pie chart of participants’ family status
Chart 3 Pie chart of participants’ education
52 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
Chart 4 Pie chart of participants’ profession
Procedure
53 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
3.1.2 Procedure
A cross- sectional survey design was employed using the convenience sampling method. The sample included 181 participants. Eligibility criteria included participants’ nonprofessional involvement to a food company, as our main goal was to explore public views. The researcher first sent questionnaires to 70 personal acquaintances who then forwarded these questionnaires to their friends or relatives. To facilitate the participation of respondents living outside Athens, we used two recruiting methods: Participants were either given packets of questionnaires or sent via e-mail the questionnaire package. At any case, participants received an information letter inviting them to take part in a study on consumers’ views, habits and behavior, and were asked to fill out the questionnaires sincerely. The letter outlined the voluntary nature of the survey and the participants’ right to withdraw at any given time, consequence-free. The total time required to complete the entire package was about 7 minutes for the males and 7 minutes for the females. Data were collected in the course of six months, from November 2014 to April 2015. A total of 181 participants sent back completed questionnaires, 153 of which filled them out online. Based on rough estimates provided by researcher’s contacts, the questionnaire was sent to approximately 1000 people resulting in an approximate response rate of 18,1%.
3.1.3 Measures
Participants’ demographics
A demographic data questionnaire was administered to the participants including questions about age, gender, profession, educational level, family status and residence. Improvised questionnaire Participants were given an improvised questionnaire for the measurement of consumers’ views, habits and behavior, which can be found in the appendix.
54 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
3.2 Interpretation of Data
Descriptive Statistics
Before discussing relations among the research questions, we describe the frequencies and percentages of each question separately. The first group of questions aimed to explore general consumption habits. Answering to the question how often do they go to the supermarket, half of the participants (50,3%) indicated going once a week, while one third (30,4%) reported going more than once. As far as the amount they spend is concerned, about half of the participants (51,4%) reported spending up to 50 euros per week and a 37% spent from fifty to one hundred euros. Over half of the participants (61,3%) were consuming snack products often and a 37% was found to consume that kind of products rarely. More specifically, 37% reported buying snack products once a week and a 18% more than once a week, while one third of the participants (28,7%) indicated buying them once a month. According to participants’ responses, their most favorite snack products are chocolates (30,9%), coffees (27,1%) and cereals (23,8%).
55 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
Table 2. Frequencies and percentages of first group of questions Variables (f) Percentage Visits to the supermarket Never 2 1,1 Once a week 91 50,3 More than once a week 55 30,4 Once a month 15 8,3 More than once a month 18 9,9 Amount spent to the supermarket 0 2 1,2 <50€ 93 51,4 50€-100€ 67 37,0 100€-150€ 15 8,3 >150€ 2 1,1 Snack consumption Often 111 61,3 Rarely 66 36,5 Never 4 2,2 How often do you buy snack products Never 5 2,8 Once a week 67 37,0 More than once a week 32 17,7 Once a month 52 28,7 More than once a month 25 13,8 Favorite snack Chocolates 56 30,9 Biscuits 13 7,2 Coffee 49 27,1 Chewing gums 5 2,8 Cereals 43 23,8 Chips 15 8,3
56 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
The next group of questions aimed to explore consumption views and behaviors regarding snack brands in general. More than half of the participants (60,8%) had a favorite snack brand and one fifth of them had more than one favorite brands. Furthermore, the vast majority of the participants were open to try new products, either always (56,4%) or sometimes (36,5%). Furthermore, half of the participants indicated that they always buy specific products from snack brands, while a 35,4% seems to try new brands and companies. Most of the respondents reported that their decision-making is influenced by all the factors mentioned in the questionnaire (i.e. price, quality, discount, brand) and a 30,9% highlights the importance of product quality to their decision- making.
Table 3. Frequencies and percentages of second group of questions Variables (f) Percentage Do you have a favorite brand Yes 110 60,8 No 35 19,3 More than one 35 19,3 Do you try new products Yes 102 56,4 No 12 6,6 Sometimes 66 36,5 Do you buy specific snack brands Yes, always 93 51,4 No, I buy randomly 24 13,3 No, I try regularly brands 64 35,4 Important decision- making factor Price 14 7,7 Quality 56 30,9 Discount 17 9,4 Brand 9 5,0 All 81 44,8 None 4 2,2
57 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
Furthermore, the mean of the participants indicated that their decision- making is influenced by pob material (M= 3,07; SD= 1,13) and television commercials (M= 2,54; SD= 1,11) and slightly influenced by radio commercials (M= 1,78; SD= 0,81), internet (M= 2,24; SD= 1,05) and leaflets (M= 1,88, SD= 0,91).
Table 4. Means and standard deviations of question 15 and its subquestions Q15 and subquestions Mean (SD) N Television commercial 2,54 1,11 181 Radio commercial 1,78 0,81 181 Internet 2,24 1,05 181 Leaflets 1,88 0,91 181 Pob material 3,07 1,13 181
58 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
The next cluster of questions described participants’ knowledge and behavior regarding particular brands. Most of the respondents reported that they know all mentioned brands (42%) and a 41% mentioned that the only brand they didn’t know were mondelez, while only a 6,1% of the participants indicated knowing only “traditional brands”, like Nestle, Papadopoulou and ION. Furthermore, half of the participants (49,2%) answered that they consume regularly products from other brands, a 23% reported consuming Kraft products and a 12% mondelez products. As far as buying mondelez products is concerned, one quarter of the participants (25,4%) indicated buying one product, another quarter (25,4%) reported buying two products and a 24% three products.
Table 5. Frequencies and percentages of third group of questions Variables (f) Percentage Companies you know All 76 42,0 Kraft not Mondelez 75 41,4 Neither Kraft nor Mondelez 15 8,3 Nestle, Papadopoulou, ION 11 6,1 Other 4 2,2 Products consumed regularly Kraft and Mondelez 28 15,5 Kraft, not Mondelez 42 23,2 Mondelez, not Kraft 22 12,2 Other 89 49,2 Products bought regularly One product 46 25,4 Two products 46 25,4 Three products 44 24,3 Other 33 18,2 None 12 6,6
59 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
Furthermore, the mean of participants indicated that they consume over one Mondelez products (M= 1,49; SD= 1,11).
Table 6. Mean and standard deviation of Mondelez products consumption Product consumption Mean (SD) N Mondelez 1,49 1,11 181
In addition, participants were asked to tally particular mondelez products with the right brand, choosing among Nestle, Kraft foods, Mondelez, PepsiCo, Kellog’s, Mars, Ferrero, Chipita, Papadopoulou and ION. Particularly for Lacta, half of the participants (49,7%) answered mistakenly and a quarter (22,7%) answered correctly. For Oreo, results were slightly the same, with half of the participants (54%) answering mistakenly and a fifth (20,4%) correctly. Regarding Fonzies, more than half of the participants (61,9%) didn’t know that it’s a mondelez product and only 10% answered this question correctly. Results were slightly similar for Merenda, as most of the participants (56,9%) tallied the product with other companies rather than Mondelez. Concerning Trident, more than one third (35,9%) of the participants answered correctly and a 37% reported that it is a Kraft product. For Jacobs, a little less than half of the respondents (43,1%) tallied the product with other companies rather than Mondelez and one third (30,4%) indicated that Jacobs belongs to Kraft foods.
Table 7. Frequencies and percentages of third group of questions Variables (f) Percentage Lacta Kraft 49 27,1 Mondelez 41 22,7 Wrong 90 49,7 Oreo Kraft 45 24,9 Mondelez 37 20,4 Wrong 98 54,1 Fonzies Kraft 49 27,1 Mondelez 19 10,5 Wrong 112 61,9
60 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
Merenda Kraft 49 27,1 Mondelez 28 15,5 Wrong 103 56,9 Trident Kraft 67 37,0 Mondelez 48 26,5 Wrong 65 35,9 Jacobs Kraft 55 30,4 Mondelez 47 26,0 Wrong 78 43,1
Furthermore, the mean of participants responded mistakenly when asked to tally products with specific brands (M= 3,03; SD= 1,95) with a minimum of zero mistakes and a maximum of six mistakes.
Table 8. Mean and standard deviation of respondents’ mistakes Respondents’ mistakes Mean (SD) N Mondelez 3,03 1,95 180
61 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
The following group of questions aimed to explore participants’ knowledge regarding Kraft Foods company. Firstly, respondents were asked whether they knew Kraft Foods in general. The vast majority of the participants (71,3%) responded that they knew the company, but they didn’t have a clear picture of the company and its products, while a 26,5% claimed that they had a clear picture of Kraft Foods company. Furthermore, more than half of the participants (52,5%) seem to correlate Kraft Foods with the mayonnaise product and a 40,9% with snack products in general. In addition, more than half of the respondents (57,5%) indicated that they didn’t have a clear picture of Kraft Foods in terms of being a youthful or conservative company, while a 26,5% claimed that the company is youthful. The vast majority of the participants (60,2%) responded correctly when asked which are Kraft Foods colors and about one third (31,5%) answered that they didn’t know. Concerning the company’s moto, most of the respondents (83,4%) answered that they didn’t know and only a 1,7 % responded correctly.
62 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
Table 9. Frequencies and percentages of fourth group of questions Variables (f) Percentage Knowledge of KraftFoods Don’t know 1 0,6 Know- not a clear picture 129 71,3 Know- clear picture 48 26,5 Products tallied with KraftFoods Snack 74 40,9 Mayonnaise 95 52,5 Color company 6 3,3 None 3 1,7 Picture of the company Youthful 48 26,5 Conservative 26 14,4 No picture 104 57,5 KraftFoods’ color Correct 109 60,2 Wrong 8 4,4 Don’t know 57 31,5 Mondelez 5 2,8 KraftFoods’ moto Correct 3 1,7 Wrong 19 10,5 Don’t know 151 83,4 Mondelez 5 2,8
63 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
The next group of questions aimed to explore participants’ knowledge regarding Mondelez company. Firstly, respondents were asked whether they knew Mondelez in general. The vast majority of the participants (52,5%) responded that they didn’t know the company at all, while a 33,7% claimed that they knew the company, but they didn’t have a clear picture of it and its products. Furthermore, when asked how they got to know the new company, about one fourth of the participants responded “from friends” and the vast majority of them didn’t answer the question at all, given that they had already postulated that they didn’t know the company in the first place. In addition, more than half of the respondents (68%) indicated that they didn’t have a clear picture of Mondelez in terms of being a youthful or conservative company, while a 26% claimed that the company is youthful. The vast majority of the participants (84,5%) responded that they didn’t know Mondelez’s moto and only a 8,3% answered correctly. Similarly, the vast majority of the participants (61,9%) responded that they didn’t know Mondelez’s colors; However, about one third of the respondents (26%) answered that question correctly. Furthermore, most of the participants responded that they didn’t know that Kraft Foods was renamed to Mondelez in 2013 and that this event didn’t have an effect to their consumption behavior (80,1%); They also postulated that this event won’t affect their preferences from now on (82,9%).
Table 10. Frequencies and percentages of fifth group of questions
Variables (f) Percentage Knowledge of Mondelez Don’t know 95 52,5 Know- not a clear picture 61 33,7 Know- clear picture 22 12,2 Means of communication Events 74 40,9 Commercials 95 52,5 Internet 6 3,3 Friends 3 1,7 Grants, CSR, Career days 13 7,2 Picture of the company Youthful 47 26,0 Conservative 5 2,8 No picture 123 68,0
64 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
Mondelez’s moto Correct 15 8,3 Wrong 5 2,8 Don’t know 153 84,5 Μοndelez’s colors Correct 47 26,0 Wrong 2 1,1 Don’t know 112 61,9 KraftFoods 14 7,7 Did you know that KraftFoods was renamed to Mondelez Yes 48 26,5 No 131 72,4 Did that change your consumption behavior Yes 11 6,1 No 145 80,1 Will this event change your behavior in the future Yes 22 12,2 No 150 82,9
65 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
Main analysis Relation of total respondents’ errors with demographic variables
First of all, we explore whether respondents’ errors are affected by their: 1. Age 2. Gender 3. Family status 4. Profession 5. Region 6. Education 7. Visits to the supermarket 8. Snack consumption 9. Favorite snack
66 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
1st hypothesis: Respondents’ errors are related to their age
Table 11. Analysis of variance of respondents’ errors on age Age 1 2 3 4 F Μ Μ Μ Μ Respondents’ errors 2,54 2,97 4,31 3,90 4,16 Note: Age categories are: 1= 18-25; 2= 26-40; 3= 41-55; 4= >56
The implementation of analysis of variance showed that F(3,176)= 4,16, p= 0,007,which means that the total respondents’ errors differ significantly by their age, since p- value is smaller than 5%. In order to identify which age groups differ in terms of respondents’ errors we continued with post hoc multiple comparisons using Tukey.
Table 12. Multiple comparisons of age groups on respondents’ errors
Age Mean S.E Sig. Difference 26-40 -,42874 ,33486 ,577 18-25 41-55 -1,76902* ,55202 ,009 >56 -1,35652 ,66361 ,176 18-25 ,42874 ,33486 ,577 26-40 41-55 -1,34028* ,50949 ,045 >56 -,92778 ,62868 ,454 18-25 1,76902* ,55202 ,009 41-55 26-40 1,34028* ,50949 ,045 >56 ,41250 ,76670 ,950 18-25 1,35652 ,66361 ,176 >56 26-40 ,92778 ,62868 ,454 41-55 -,41250 ,76670 ,950
As we can see from the table above 18-25 and 26-40 age groups did significantly less mistakes (M= 2,54 and M= 2,97) respectively than 41-55 age group (M= 4,81)
67 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
2nd hypothesis: Respondents’ errors are related to their gender
Table 13. Means, standard deviations and implementation of t-test for respondents’ errors on their gender M SD Ν df t p-value Respondents’ errors Male 3,00 2,05 52 178 -0,15 0,51 Female 3,04 1,91 128
As we can see in the table above, males’ and females’ errors do not differ significantly, as p- value>0,05.
3rd hypothesis: Respondents’ errors are related to their family status
Table 14. Analysis of variance of respondents’ errors on family status Family status 1 2 3 4 5 F Μ Μ Μ Μ Μ Respondents’ errors 2,55 3,11 3,58 5,33 3,00 3,69 Note: Family status categories are: 1= single; 2= in a long-term relationship; 3= married; 4= divorced; 5= widowed
The implementation of analysis of variance showed that F(4,175)= 3,69, p= 0,007,which means that the total respondents’ errors differ significantly by their family status, since p- value is smaller than 5%. In order to identify which family status groups differ in terms of respondents’ errors we continued with post hoc multiple comparisons using Tukey.
Table 15. Multiple comparisons of family status groups on respondents’ errors
Family status Mean S.E Sig. Difference (I-J)
Long-term relationship -,56471 ,38463 ,585 Single Married -1,03634* ,32623 ,015
68 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
Divorced -2,78039 1,11351 ,096
Widowed -,44706 1,35600 ,997 Single ,56471 ,38463 ,585 Married -,47164 ,41211 ,783 Long-term relationship Divorced -2,21569 1,14163 ,300 Widowed ,11765 1,37918 1,000 Single 1,03634* ,32623 ,015 Long-term relationship ,47164 ,41211 ,783 Married Divorced -1,74405 1,12330 ,530 Widowed ,58929 1,36405 ,993 Single 2,78039 1,11351 ,096 Long-term relationship 2,21569 1,14163 ,300 Divorced Married 1,74405 1,12330 ,530 Widowed 2,33333 1,73035 ,661 Single ,44706 1,35600 ,997
Long-term relationship -,11765 1,37918 1,000 Widowed Married -,58929 1,36405 ,993
Divorced -2,33333 1,73035 ,661
As we can see in the table above, married respondents’ did significantly more mistakes in question 21 (M= 3,58) than did single respondents (M= 2,55). All the other comparisons were found not to be significant.
69 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
4th hypothesis: Respondents’ errors are related to their profession
Table 21. Analysis of variance of respondents’ errors on profession Profession 1 2 3 4 5 6 F Μ Μ Μ Μ Μ M Respondents’ errors 3,04 4,57 2,69 3,79 2,81 3,38 2,51 Note: Profession categories are: 1= Student; 2= Public section; 3= Private section; 4= Self- employed; 5= Unemployed; 6= Retired
The implementation of analysis of variance showed that F(5,174)= 2,51, p= 0,03, which means that the total respondents’ errors differ significantly by their profession, since p- value is smaller than 5%. In order to identify which profession groups differ in terms of respondents’ errors we continued with post hoc multiple comparisons using Tukey.
Table 16. Multiple comparisons of profession groups on respondents’ errors
Profession Mean S.E Sig. Difference
Public section -1,53297 ,81400 ,416
Private section ,34149 ,42126 ,965
Student Self- employed -,75464 ,51630 ,689
Unemployed ,22028 ,68758 1,000
Retired -,33654 ,77288 ,998 Student 1,53297 ,81400 ,416 Private section 1,87446 ,74764 ,128 Public section Self- employed ,77833 ,80502 ,928 Unemployed 1,75325 ,92426 ,408 Retired 1,19643 ,98936 ,832 Student -,34149 ,42126 ,965 Public section -1,87446 ,74764 ,128 Private section Self- employed -1,09613 ,40364 ,077 Unemployed -,12121 ,60756 1,000 Retired -,67803 ,70264 ,928
70 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
Student ,75464 ,51630 ,689 Public section -,77833 ,80502 ,928 Self- employed Private section 1,09613 ,40364 ,077 Unemployed ,97492 ,67692 ,702 Retired ,41810 ,76342 ,994 Student -,22028 ,68758 1,000 Public section -1,75325 ,92426 ,408 Unemployed Private section ,12121 ,60756 1,000 Self- employed -,97492 ,67692 ,702 Retired -,55682 ,88826 ,989 Student ,33654 ,77288 ,998
Public section -1,19643 ,98936 ,832
Retired Private section ,67803 ,70264 ,928
Self- employed -,41810 ,76342 ,994
Unemployed ,55682 ,88826 ,989
As we can see in the table above, multiple comparisons didn’t show a significant differentiation among the groups in terms of profession, given that Tukey is a strict method for the calculation of multiple comparisons. However, it seems that respondents coming from the private section did less mistakes (M= 2,69) than self- employed respondents (M= 3,79).
5th hypothesis: Respondents’ errors are related to their region
Table 17. Analysis of variance of respondents’ errors on region Region 1 2 3 4 F Μ Μ Μ Μ Respondents’ errors 2,89 3,33 4,00 3,74 1,70 Note: Region categories are: 1= Athens; 2= Thessaloniki; 3= Crete; 4= Other
The implementation of analysis of variance showed that the total respondents’ error does not differ significantly by their age, since p- value= 0,17
71 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
6th hypothesis: Respondents’ errors are related to their education level
Table 18. Analysis of variance of respondents’ errors on education level Education level 1 2 3 4 F Μ Μ Μ Μ Respondents’ errors 3,79 3,54 3,14 2,24 0,727 Note: Education level categories are: 1= High school; 2= College; 3= University; 4= MSc/PhD
The implementation of analysis of variance showed that F(3,176)= 5,07, p= 0,002, which means that the total respondents’ errors differ significantly by their education level, since p- value is smaller than 5%. In order to identify which education level groups differ in terms of respondents’ errors we continued with post hoc multiple comparisons using Tukey.
Table 19. Multiple comparisons of education groups on respondents’ errors
Education level Mean Std. Error Sig. Difference College ,25595 ,52526 ,962 High School University ,64881 ,44144 ,458 MSc/ PhD 1,55637* ,46741 ,006 High School -,25595 ,52526 ,962 College University ,39286 ,41671 ,782 MSc/ PhD 1,30042* ,44413 ,020 High School -,64881 ,44144 ,458 University College -,39286 ,41671 ,782 MSc/ PhD ,90756* ,34091 ,042 High School -1,55637* ,46741 ,006 MSc/ PhD College -1,30042* ,44413 ,020 University -,90756* ,34091 ,042
As we can see in the table above, respondents with a masters’ or PhD degree did significantly less mistakes (M= 2,24) than those who had completed only high school (M= 3,79), college (M= 3,54) and university (M=3,14). Furthermore respondents who had a bachelor’s degree did significantly less mistakes (M= 3,14) than respondents who had completed their high school education (M= 3,79).
72 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
7th hypothesis: Respondents’ errors are related to their visits to the supermarket
Table 20. Analysis of variance of respondents’ errors on visits to the supermarket Visits to the supermarket 1 2 3 4 5 F Μ Μ Μ Μ Μ 2,96 Respondents’ errors 4,00 2,81 3,67 3,07 2,11 Note: Visits to the supermarket categories are: 1= Never; 2= Once a week; 3= More than once a week; 4= Once a month; 5= More than once a month
The implementation of analysis of variance showed that F(4,175)= 2,96, p= 0,021, which means that the total respondents’ errors differ significantly by their visits to the supermarket since p- value is smaller than 5%. In order to identify which groups differ in terms of respondents’ errors we continued with post hoc multiple comparisons using Tukey.
Table 21. Multiple comparisons of visits to the supermarket groups on respondents’ errors Visits to the supermarket Mean S.E. Sig. Difference Once a week 1,18681 1,36546 ,908 More than once a week ,33333 1,37548 ,999 Never Once a month ,93333 1,43793 ,967 More than once a month 1,88889 1,42376 ,675 Never -1,18681 1,36546 ,908 More than once a week -,85348 ,32813 ,075 Once a week Once a month -,25348 ,53230 ,989 More than once a month ,70208 ,49275 ,613 Never -,33333 1,37548 ,999 Once a week ,85348 ,32813 ,075 More than once a week Once a month ,60000 ,55751 ,819 More than once a month 1,55556* ,51988 ,026 Never -,93333 1,43793 ,967 Once a week ,25348 ,53230 ,989 Once a month More than once a week -,60000 ,55751 ,819 More than once a month ,95556 ,66780 ,609 Never -1,88889 1,42376 ,675 More than once a month Once a week -,70208 ,49275 ,613 More than once a week -1,55556* ,51988 ,026
73 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
Once a month -,95556 ,66780 ,609
As we can see in the table above, respondents going to the supermarket more than once a month did significantly less mistakes (M= 2,11) than those going to the supermarket more than once a week (M= 2,81).
8th hypothesis: Respondents’ errors are related to their snack consumption
Table 22. Analysis of variance of respondents’ errors on snack consumption Snack consumption 1 2 3 F Μ Μ Μ 0,37 Respondents’ errors 2,94 3,20 3,00 Note: Snack consumption categories are: 1= Yes, often; 2= Rarely; 3= Never
The implementation of analysis of variance showed that the total respondents’ error does not differ significantly by their snack consumption, since p- value is larger than 5% (p= 0,70).
74 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
9th hypothesis: Respondents’ errors are related to their favorite snack
Table 23. Analysis of variance of respondents’ errors on their favorite snack Favorite snack 1 2 3 4 5 6 F Μ Μ Μ Μ Μ M Respondents’ errors 3,48 3,00 2,98 1,00 2,92 2,53 2,96 Note: Favorite snack categories are: 1= Chocolates; 2= Biscuits; 3= Coffee; 4= Gums; 5= Cereals; 6= Chips The implementation of analysis of variance showed that the total respondents’ errors do not differ significantly by their favorite snack, since p- value is larger than 5% (p= 0,08).
Relation of respondents’ total Mondelez products consumption with demographic variables
Continuing the main part of our analysis, we explore whether Mondelez products consumption is affected by respondents’: 10. Age 11. Gender 12. Family status 13. Profession 14. Region 15. Education 16. Visits to the supermarket 17. Snack consumption 18. Favorite snack
75 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
10th hypothesis: Mondelez products consumption is related to respondents’ age
Table 24. Analysis of variance of Mondelez products consumption on age Age 1 2 3 4 F Μ Μ Μ Μ Mondelez products 1,76 1,42 1,41 1,20 1,32 consumption Note: Age categories are: 1= 18-25; 2= 26-40; 3= 41-55; 4= >56
The implementation of analysis of variance showed that the total Mondelez products consumption does not differ significantly by respondents’ age, since p- value is larger than 5%.
11th hypothesis: Mondelez products consumption is related to respondents’ gender
Table 26. Means, standard deviations and implementation of t-test for Mondelez products consumption on respondents’ gender M SD Ν df t p-value Mondelez products consumption Male 1,32 1,20 53 179 -1,33 0,14 Female 1,56 1,07 128
As we can see in the table above, males’ and females’ Mondelez products consumption do not differ significantly, as p-value> 0,05.
76 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
12th hypothesis: Mondelez products consumption is related to respondents’ family status
Table 27. Analysis of variance of Mondelez products consumption on respondents’ family status Family status 1 2 3 4 5 F Μ Μ Μ Μ Μ 0,28 Mondelez products 1,53 1,35 1,52 1,67 1,00 consumption Note: Family status categories are: 1= single; 2= in a long-term relationship; 3= married; 4= divorced; 5= widowed
The implementation of analysis of variance showed that the total Mondelez products consumption does not differ significantly by respondents’ family status, since p- value is larger than 5% (p= 0,88).
13th hypothesis: Mondelez products consumption is related to respondents’ profession
Table 29. Analysis of variance of Mondelez products consumption on profession Profession 1 2 3 4 5 6 F Μ Μ Μ Μ Μ M Mondelez products 1,88 1,14 1,45 1,53 1,36 1,00 2,51 consumption Note: Profession categories are: 1= Student; 2= Public section; 3= Private section; 4= Self- employed; 5= Unemployed; 6= Retired
The implementation of analysis of variance showed that the total Mondelez products consumption does not differ significantly by respondents’ profession, since p- value is larger than 5% (p=0,33).
77 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
14th hypothesis: Mondelez products consumption is related to respondents’ region
Table 31. Analysis of variance of Mondelez products consumption on region Region 1 2 3 4 F Μ Μ Μ Μ Mondelez products 1,49 1,33 1,86 1,42 0,29 consumption Note: Region categories are: 1= Athens; 2= Thessaloniki; 3= Crete; 4= Other
The implementation of analysis of variance showed that the total Mondelez products consumption does not differ significantly by respondents’ region, since p- value is larger than 5% (p= 0,63).
15th hypothesis: Mondelez products consumption is related to respondents’ education level
Table 32. Analysis of variance of Mondelez products consumption on education level Education level 1 2 3 4 F Μ Μ Μ Μ Mondelez products 1,83 1,55 1,44 1,37 1,03 consumption Note: Education level categories are: 1= High school; 2= College; 3= University; 4= MSc/PhD
The implementation of analysis of variance showed that the total Mondelez products consumption does not differ significantly by respondents’ educational level since p- value is larger than 5% (p=0,38).
78 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
16th hypothesis: Mondelez products consumption is related to respondents’ visits to the supermarket
Table 34. Analysis of variance of Mondelez products consumption on visits to the supermarket Visits to the supermarket 1 2 3 4 5 F Μ Μ Μ Μ Μ 1,63 Mondelez products 1,00 1,36 1,47 2,00 1,83 consumption Note: Visits to the supermarket categories are: 1= Never; 2= Once a week; 3= More than once a week; 4= Once a month; 5= More than once a month
The implementation of analysis of variance showed that the total Mondelez products consumption does not differ significantly by respondents’ visits to the supermarket, since p- value is larger than 5%.
79 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
17th hypothesis: Mondelez products consumption is related to respondents’ snack consumption
Table 36. Analysis of variance of Mondelez products consumption on snack consumption Snack consumption 1 2 3 F Μ Μ Μ 6,08 Mondelez products 1,70 1,12 1,75 consumption Note: Snack consumption categories are: 1= Yes, often; 2= Rarely; 3= Never
The implementation of analysis of variance showed that F(2,178)= 6,08, p= 0,003,which means that Mondelez products consumption differs significantly by participants’ snack consumption, since p- value is smaller than 5%. In order to identify which snack consumption group differs in terms of Mondelez products consumption we continued with post hoc multiple comparisons using Tukey.
Table 21. Multiple comparisons of participants’ snack consumption on Mondelez product consumption Snack consumption Mean S.E. Sig. Difference (I-J)
Rarely ,58149* ,16842 ,002 Yes, regularly Never -,04730 ,55143 ,996 Yes,regularly -,58149* ,16842 ,002 Rarely Never -,62879 ,55793 ,499 Yes,regularly ,04730 ,55143 ,996 Never Rarely ,62879 ,55793 ,499
As we can see from the table above, respondents consuming regularly snack products tend to consume more Mondelez products (M= 1,70) than those who consumed rarely snack products (M= 1,12).
80 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
18th hypothesis: Mondelez products consumption is related to respondents’ favorite snack
Table 37. Analysis of variance of Mondelez products consumption on respondents favorite snack Favorite snack 1 2 3 4 5 6 F Μ Μ Μ Μ Μ M Mondelez products 1,73 1,54 1,71 0,80 1,05 1,33 2,88 consumption Note: Favorite snack categories are: 1= Chocolates; 2= Biscuits; 3= Coffee; 4= Gums; 5= Cereals; 6= Chips
The implementation of analysis of variance showed that F(5,175)= 2,88, p= 0,016,which means that Mondelez products consumption differs significantly by participants’ favorite snack, since p- value is smaller than 5%. In order to identify which favorite snack group differs in terms of Mondelez products consumption we continued with post hoc multiple comparisons using Tukey.
Table 21. Multiple comparisons of participants’ favorite snack on Mondelez product consumption Favorite snack Mean Std. Error Sig. Difference (I-J)
biscuits ,19368 ,33423 ,992
coffee ,01786 ,21237 1,000 sokolates-gkofretes gum ,93214 ,50672 ,443
cereals ,68563* ,22013 ,026
chips ,39881 ,31562 ,804 chocolates -,19368 ,33423 ,992 coffee -,17582 ,33869 ,995 biscuits gum ,73846 ,57130 ,789 cereals ,49195 ,34361 ,708 chips ,20513 ,41138 ,996 chocolates -,01786 ,21237 1,000 coffee biscuits ,17582 ,33869 ,995
81 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
gum ,91429 ,50968 ,472 cereals ,66777* ,22685 ,042 chips ,38095 ,32035 ,842 chocolates -,93214 ,50672 ,443 biscuits -,73846 ,57130 ,789 gum coffee -,91429 ,50968 ,472 cereals -,24651 ,51296 ,997 chips -,53333 ,56062 ,932 chocolates -,68563* ,22013 ,026 biscuits -,49195 ,34361 ,708 cereals coffee -,66777* ,22685 ,042 gum ,24651 ,51296 ,997 chips -,28682 ,32555 ,951 chocolates -,39881 ,31562 ,804
biscuits -,20513 ,41138 ,996 chips coffee -,38095 ,32035 ,842
gum ,53333 ,56062 ,932
cereals ,28682 ,32555 ,951
As we can see from the table above, respondents who had chocolates as their favorite snack product consumed more Mondelez products (M= 1,73) than those who had cereals as their favorite snack (M= 1,05). In addition, those who had coffee as their favorite snack product (M= 1,77) consumed more Mondelez products than those who had cereals (M= 1,05).
82 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
Correlation analysis
Table 9. Correlations among key study variables in the total sample 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 tv commercial 1 radio commercial ,474** 1 internet ,444** ,441** 1 leaflets ,315** ,523** ,544** 1 pob material ,390** ,303** ,348** ,291 1 respondents' errors -,114 ,015 -,149* ,021 ,014** 1 product consumption ,326** ,167* ,221** ,051 ,158 -,139* 1 *p< .05; **p< .01; ***p< .001. Note: 1.tv commercial; 2. radio commercial; 3.internet; 4. leaflets; 5. pob material; 6.respondents' errors; 7.product consumption;
As we can see from the table above, respondents’ errors and their product consumption have a low negative correlation (r= -0,14, p< 0,05), which means that the respondents who consume more Mondelez products tend to answer correctly when asked to tally snack products with their brand.
83 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
3.3 Summary
The questionnaire was answered by 181 people, from which the majority were women and citizens of Athens. Over half of the participants ranged between 26 and 40 years old. The majority reported education beyond high school. A large proportion of the sample was employed in the private sector. About half of the participants indicated being single and one third were married. Half of the respondents go to the supermarket once a week and spend up to 50€, which is logical if we think that the majority of the respondents were single. The majority of the respondents consume snack products more than once per week, and the main categories are chocolate, coffee and cereals. Consumers seem to have a favorite brand and to be loyal to that; however they are open to try new products. Product quality is the main factor that influences their buying behavior. However, TV commercials and POB material play a major role as well. Most of the respondents knew all mentioned snack companies. However, only a very small percentage knew Mondelez, even though they are consuming a lot of her products. Furthermore, consumers of Kraft products are almost double than the ones of Mondelez products, which shows that consumers are not informed about the rebranding even two years after. Participants were not able to tally the brands with their company. More specifically, for Lacta and Oreo, approximately half of the participants answered mistakenly. Regarding Fonzies and Merenda, more than half of the participants didn’t know that it’s a Mondelez product. Concerning Trident, more than one third of the participants answered correctly and another third reported that it is a Kraft Foods product. For Jacobs, a little less than half of the respondents tallied the product with other companies rather than Mondelez and one third indicated that Jacobs belongs to Kraft Foods. Regarding the participants’ knowledge towards Kraft Foods company, most of them knew the company, but they didn’t have a clear picture of the company and its products. Furthermore, more than half of the participants seem to correlate Kraft Foods with the Mayonnaise range and less than the half with snack products in general. On the other hand, regarding participants’ knowledge towards Mondelez company, the vast majority of the participants responded that they didn’t know the company at all. The ones who did know the company, they answered that they knew it “from friends”.
84 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
In addition, most of the participants indicated that they didn’t have a clear picture for both companies in terms of being a youthful or conservative company, they didn’t know neither Mondelez’s nor Kraft Food’s moto nor Mondelez’s colors, even though they knew Kraft Food’s colors. Interesting was that most of the participants didn’t know that Kraft Foods was renamed to Mondelez in 2013 and that this event didn’t have an effect to their consumption behavior and won’t affect their preferences from now on. The profile of the respondents who did less mistakes were the ones who work in the private section and hold a bachelor’s, masters’ or PhD degree. Surprising was that respondents that don’t go to the supermarket many times per week did less mistakes, which can be explained by the fact that they don’t proceed in impulsive buying behavior but are informed about the different proposals of the companies. The profile of the heavy Mondelez’s products consumers is the person who consume regularly snack products and who had chocolates and coffee as their favorite snack product. Those respondents were able to answer correctly which brands belong to Mondelez.
85 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSIONS
After the acquisition of Cadbury on 2009, Kraft Foods became a multinational FMCG giant, which almost reached the size of Nestle, the No1 player. However, the strong competition and the requirements of the customers (retailers) and the consumers as well as the stockholder’s desire for maximization of profits and high growth rates led to the split of Kraft Foods in two companies. The one under the name Kraft Foods would be a North American grocery business that earns a lot of profit despite low growth. The other under the new name Mondelez Int. would be the bigger snack foods company ($ 35b) with more than 80% of its business in fast growing markets abroad. The aim of this split was to focus in the rapid development of the snacking industry. The company would be able to reserve money to invest on R&D for innovative products and obtain the requested growth rates. One could thing that a change like this could hide many risks. However, the investment that the company had made all over these years to create powerful brands was compensated more than ever. Even though the company changed her name, product brands proved to be more powerful that the name of the company. Mondelez Int. managed to bring the requested targets each year both in global and local level. From the questionnaire, we saw that consumers recognized all the mentioned snacking companies. However, the major outcome of the questionnaire is that they can’t correlate brands with company. Mondelez is recognized by a very small percentage of the respondents, even though it seems to have lovable brands that are bought more than once per week. As expected, Kraft Foods products had a bigger percentage of consumption, which shows that people are not aware of the rebranding and they can’t correlate correctly brands and companies. Less than half of the respondents were able to answer correctly that the specific brands are under the Mondelez umbrella. Kraft Foods is more known for the Mayonnaise range and less for the snack products. This can be explained by the fact that only the grocery products, meaning Mayonnaise, Philadelphia etc. have connected the brand with the Kraft Food’s logo and colors. They are the only products that have front-of-pack the name “Kraft”. Having in mind that the questionnaire was distributed and answered locally, we can only assume that the trends are the same in a global level, as the company followed the same strategy for her rebranding globally. It was remarkable that no big campaign was conducted
86 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS to promote the rebranding of the company, apart from the on-pack change of the details of the company. As Michael Mitchell, a spokesman for Kraft said “Consumers will see the name only in small print – Mondelez will allow its famous brand names, which will include Oreo, Cadbury, Milka, Trident, etc. to do their work. It’s not intended to be a consumer brand”. The strategic decision of the company to not invest on promoting her rebranding was also shown in the questionnaire, as the respondents said that they knew Mondelez “from friends”. Most of the participants responded that they didn’t know that Kraft Foods was renamed to Mondelez in 2013. They don’t know Mondelez’s nor Kraft Food’s moto nor Mondelez’s colors. The company’s rebranding didn’t have an effect to their consumption behavior and it won’t affect their preferences from now on. From the miniature of Greece, we concluded that the corporate rebranding in Mondelez case was a safe move, as the power of the product brands were stronger than the corporate brand and there was no correlation in the mind of the consumers between the company and her brands.
87 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
REFERENCES
Ahonen, M. (2008) Corporate Re-Branding Process: A Preliminary Theoretical Framework. Proceeings of the Conference on Corporate Communication 2008, 6th - 9th, 2008, Wroxton, England: 31 - 38.
Balmer, J. and Greyser, S. (Eds) (2003), “Revealing the Corporation”, London, Routledge.
Balmer, J., Mukherjee, A., Greyser, S. and Jenster, P. (Eds) (2006), “Special Issue: Corporate marketing: integrating corporate identity, corporate branding, corporate communications, corporate image and corporate reputation”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40 Nos 7/8.
Bergstrom, A., Blumenthal, D. and Crothers, S. (2002), “Why internal branding matters: the case of Saab”, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 5 Nos 2/3, pp. 133-42.
Berry, L. (2000), “Cultivating service brand equity”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 128-37.
Bill Merrilees and Dale Miller (2008), “Principles of corporate rebranding”, Department of Marketing, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia European Journal of Marketing Vol. 42 No. 5/6, 2008, pp. 537-552
Birtwistle, G. and Freathy, P. (1998), “More than just a name above the shop: a comparison of the branding strategies of two UK fashion retailers”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 26 No. 8, pp. 318-23.
Daly, A. and Moloney, D. (2004), "Managing Corporate Rebranding", Irish Marketing Review, Vol. 17, No. 1/2, pp. 30.
Davies, G. and Chun, R. (2002), “Gaps between the internal and external perceptions of the corporate brand”, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 5 Nos 2/3, pp. 144-58.
88 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
de Chernatony, L. (2002), “Would a brand smell any sweeter by a corporate name?”, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 5 Nos 2/3, pp. 114-32.
Dowling, G. (1994), “Corporate Reputations”, Kogan Page, London.
Fombrun, C. (1996), “Reputation: Realizing Value from the Corporate Image”, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Gapp, R. and Merrilees, B. (2006), “Important factors to consider when using internal branding as a management strategy: a healthcare case study”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 14 Nos 1/2, pp. 162-76.
Gregory, J. (1991), “Marketing Corporate Image”, NTC Business Books, Lincolnwood, IL.
Hatch, M. and Schultz, M. (2003), “Bringing the corporation into corporate branding”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 Nos 7/8, pp. 1041-64.
Ind, N. (1997), “The Corporate Brand”, Macmillan, London.
Ind, N. (2004), “Living the Brand: How to Transform Every Member of Your Organization into a Brand Champion”, 2nd ed., Kogan Page, London.
Knox, S. and Bickerton, D. (2003), “The six conventions of corporate branding”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 Nos 7/8, pp. 998-1016.
Lomax, W. and Mador, M. (2006), “Corporate re-branding: From normative models to knowledge management”, Brand Management, Vol. 14, No. 1/2, pp. 82-95.
Melewar, T. and Karaosmanoglu, E. (Eds) (2006), “Special Issue on corporate branding, identity and communications”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 14 Nos 1/2.
Muzellec, L. and Lambkin, M. (2006), "Corporate rebranding: destroying, transferring or creating brand equity?", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40, No. 7/8, pp. 803-824.
89 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
Olins, W. (2003), “On Brand”, Thames & Hudson, London.
Patrick Cettier and Bernd Schmitt (2008), “Strategic Corporate Re-branding”, Contemporary Thoughts on Corporate Branding and Corporate Identity Management, pp. 169-187.
Schroeder, J. and Salzer-Morling, M. (Eds) (2006), “Brand Culture”, Routledge, Milton Park.
Schultz, M., Antorini, Y. and Csaba, F. (Eds) (2005), “Towards the Second Wave of Corporate Branding: Corporate Branding Purpose/People/Process”, Copenhagen Business School Press, Copenhagen.
Stuart, H. & Muzellec, L. (2004). “Corporate makeovers: Can a hyena be rebranded?”, Brand Management, Vol. 11, No. 6, pp. 472-482.
Urde, M. (2003), “Core value-based corporate brand building”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 Nos 7/8, pp. 1017-40.
Vallaster, C. and de Chernatony, L. (2006), “Internal branding building and structuration: the role of leadership”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40 Nos 7/8, pp. 761-84.
INTERNET
J. Williams, The Art of Rebranding, 2006, http://www.entrepreneur.com/marketing/branding/imageandbrandingcolumnistjohnwillia ms/article159470.html
R. Duncan, Brands and branding: Why re-brand? Part 2, n.d., 2007 http://www.mediatoolbox.co.za/pebble.asp?p=40&relid=3038
Official Mondelez Site, 2014
90 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
APPENDIX Ερωτηματολόγιο Το ερωτηματολόγιο αποτελεί το ερευνητικό μέρος της διπλωματικής εργασίας του Μεταπτυχιακού Προγράμματος Σπουδών στη Διοίκηση Επιχειρήσεων για στελέχη του Πανεπιστήμιου Πειραιώς του φοιτητή Δημητρακάκου Πέτρου με θέμα “Rebranding Marketing & Corporate Marketing – The case of Mondelēz”.
Οι απαντήσεις σας θα παραμείνουν εμπιστευτικές και θα χρησιμοποιηθούν αποκλειστικά και μόνο για τους σκοπούς της παρούσας μελέτης. Μια σύνοψη των αποτελεσμάτων της έρευνάς μας θα σας κοινοποιηθεί μετά την ολοκλήρωση της μελέτης, εφόσον το επιθυμείτε. Το ερωτηματολόγιο αυτό είναι ανώνυμο και σας παρακαλούμε να απαντήσετε σε όλες τις ερωτήσεις με τον τρόπο που ορίζεται κάθε φορά.
Τα στοιχεία του ερωτηματολογίου χρησιμοποιούνται για καθαρά ερευνητικούς – επιστημονικούς λόγους. Για τη συμπλήρωσή του χρειάζονται λιγότερο από είκοσι λεπτά και ευχαριστούμε εκ των προτέρων για το χρόνο και τη συνεργασία σας.
Δημογραφικά στοιχεία
1. Ηλικία α) 18-25 β) 26-40 γ) 41-55 δ) >56
2. Φύλλο α) Άντρας β) Γυναίκα
3. Οικογενειακή κατάσταση α) Άγαμος β) Σε μακροχρόνια σχέση γ) Έγγαμος δ) Διαζευγμένος ε) Χήρος
4. Επάγγελμα α) Φοιτητής β) Δημόσιος Υπάλληλος γ) Ιδιωτικός Υπάλληλος δ) Ελεύθερος Επαγγελματίας ε) Άνεργος z) Συνταξιούχος
91 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
5. Τόπος Κατοικίας α) Αθήνα β) Θεσσαλονίκη γ) Κρήτη δ) Ρόδο ε) Άλλο
6. Μορφωτικό επίπεδο α) Δημοτικό β) Γυμνάσιο γ) Λύκειο δ) Ι.Ε.Κ./Κολλέγιο β) Πτυχιούχος ΑΕΙ δ) Κάτοχος μεταπτυχιακού τίτλου/ διδακτορικού
7. Μηνιαίο εισόδημα α) 0 β) > 500€ γ) 500€-1000€ δ) 1000€ – 1500€ ε) 1500€ - 2000€ στ) > 2.000€
8. Πόσο συχνά πάτε στο Σούπερ Μάρκετ; α) Καμία β) Μία φορά την εβδομάδα γ) Περισσότερες από μία φορά την εβδομάδα δ) Μια φορά τον μήνα ε) Περισσότερες από μία φορά τον μήνα
9. Τι ποσό ξοδεύετε συνήθως κάθε βδομάδα στο Σούπερ Μάρκετ; α) 0 β) < 50€ γ) 50€-100€ δ) 100€-150€ ε) > 150€
10. Καταναλώνετε προϊόντα snack; (Τα snack προϊόντα θεωρούνται αυτά που καταναλώνονται ανάμεσα στα κύρια γεύματα της ημέρας και αφορά τις κατηγορίες σοκολάτα-τσίχλες-καραμέλες-καφές-πατατάκια-γαριδάκια-δημητριακά.) α) Ναι, συχνά β) Σπάνια γ) Όχι, ποτέ
92 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
11. Πόσο συχνά αγοράζετε αυτά τα προϊόντα; α) Ποτέ β) Μία φορά την εβδομάδα γ) Περισσότερες από μία φορά την εβδομάδα δ) Μια φορά τον μήνα ε) Περισσότερες από μία φορά τον μήνα
12. Ποια είναι η πιο αγαπημένη σας κατηγορία snacks; a) Σοκολάτες - Γκοφρέτες b) Μπισκότα c) Καφέδες d) Τσίκλες – Καραμέλες e) Δημητριακά f) Πατατάκια – Γαριδάκια
13. Έχετε κάποια αγαπημένη μάρκα προϊόντος από τις παραπάνω κατηγορίες; a) Ναι b) Όχι c) Παραπάνω από μία
14. Δοκιμάζετε νέα προϊόντα; a) Ναι b) Όχι c) Μερικές φορές
15. Σε τι βαθμό επηρεάζεται η απόφασή σας να αγοράσετε κάποιο προϊόν της κατηγορίας των snacks από τους παρακάτω παράγοντες; 1=Καθόλου 2=Πολύ 3=Μέτρια 4=Πολύ 5=Πάρα Λίγο πολύ Τηλεοπτική Διαφήμιση Ραδιοφωνική Διαφήμιση Internet Έντυπος Τύπος Pob υλικά (Δείκτες Ραφιού, stands, αφίσες) σε Σούπερ Μάρκετ
16. Αγοράζετε συγκεκριμένα προϊιόντα από τις κατηγορίες snacks; (π.χ. για σοκολατα αγοράζω μόνο Lacta ή ΙΟΝ αμυγδάλου) a) Ναι, πάντα b) Όχι, αγοράζω τυχαία μάρκες και εταιρείες c) Όχι, δοκιμάζω συχνά νέες μάρκες και εταιρείες
93 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
17. Ποιο παράγοντα θεωρείτε πιο σημαντικό για την αγορά των προϊόντων αυτών; a) Τιμή b) Συσκευασία c) Ποιότητα d) Προϊόν με έκπτωση e) Η μάρκα f) To όνομα της Εταιρείας g) Όλα τα παραπάνω e) Κανένα από τα παραπάνω
18. Ποιες από τις παρακάτω εταιρείες γνωρίζετε; (Kυκλώστε όσες γνωρίζετε) a) Nestle b) Kraft Foods c) Mondelēz d) PepsiCo e) Kellogg’s f) Mars g) Ferrero h) Chipita i) Παπαδοπούλου j) ΙΟΝ k) Δεν γνωρίζω καμία
19. Για ποιες από τις εταιρείες παρακάτω, θα μπορούσατε να πείτε πως είστε συχνοί καταναλωτές των προϊόντων τους; (Επιλέξτε όσες εταιρείες είστε καταναλωτές προϊόντων τους) a) Nestle b) Kraft Foods c) Mondelēz d) PepsiCo e) Kellogg’s f) Mars g) Ferrero h) Chipita i) Παπαδοπούλου j) ΙΟΝ k) Καμία
94 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
20. Ποια από τα παρακάτω προϊόντα αγοράζετε συστηματικά; (Kυκλώστε όσα αγοράζετε συστηματικά) a) Lacta b) Kit Kat c) M&Ms d) Lays e) All Bran f) Oreo g) Nescafe h) Twix i) Nutella j) Molto k) Cream Crαckers l) Nucrema m) Kinder Bueno n) Bake Rolls o) Quaker p) Fonzies q) Special K r) Merenda s) Cheetos t) Trident u) Jacobs v) Break w) Caprice x) Fitness y) Crunch z) Orbit aa) Derby bb) Δεν αγοράζω κανένα
95 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
21. Σημειώστε σε ποια εταιρεία αντιστοιχούν τα παρακάτω προϊόντα; (Το κάθε προϊόν μπορεί να ανήκει μόνο σε μία εταιρεία)
96 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
22. Γνωρίζετε την εταιρεία KraftFoods; a) Δε γνωρίζω την εταιρεία αυτή. b) Την γνωρίζω άλλα δεν έχω πλήρη/καθόλου εικόνα για την εταιρεία και τα προϊόντα της c) Την γνωρίζω και έχω πλήρη εικόνα για την εταιρεία και τα προϊόντα της.
23. Με ποια από τα παρακάτω στοιχεία συσχετίζετε την KraftFoods; a) Με προϊόντα σνακ b) Με τη μαγιονέζα MayonnaiseKraft c) Με την εταιρεία χρωμάτων Kraft d) Με τις μπύρες Craft e) Με κανένα από τα παραπάνω
24. Τι εικόνα έχετε για την εταιρεία αυτή; a) Νεανική b) Συντηρητική c) Δεν έχω κάποια εικόνα
25. Ποια είναι τα χρώματα της εταιρείας KraftFoods; a) Μπλε b) Κόκκινο c) Κίτρινο d) Πορτοκαλί e) Μωβ f) Δε γνωρίζω
26. Ποιο είναι το μότο της εταιρείας KraftFoods; a) Joy b) Fun c) Care d) Για Πάντα e) Good food, good life f) Δε γνωρίζω
27. Γνωρίζετε την εταιρεία Mondelēz; a) Δε γνωρίζω την εταιρεία αυτή. b) Την γνωρίζω άλλα δεν έχω πλήρη/καθόλου εικόνα για την εταιρεία και τα προϊόντα της c) Την γνωρίζω και έχω πλήρη εικόνα για την εταιρεία και τα προϊόντα της.
28. Πώς γνωρίσατε την νέα αυτή εταιρεία; a) Επικοινωνία- Events σε αίθουσες SM b) Διαφήμιση σε TV, Radio, Press c) Internet d) Από φίλους e) Χορηγός εκδηλώσεων, ενέργειες εταιρικής κοινωνικής ευθύνης, ημέρες καριέρας κ.α
97 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
29. Τι εικόνα έχετε για το προφίλ της εταιρείας Mondelēz; a) Νεανική b) Συντηρητική c) Δεν γνωρίζω
30. Ποιο από τα παρακάτω είναι το μότο της Mondelēz; a) Joy b) Fun c) Care d) Για Πάντα e) Good food, good life f) Δεν γνωρίζω
31. Ποιο είναι το χρώμα της εταιρείας; a) Μωβ b) Κόκκινο c) Μπλε d) Κίτρινο e) Δεν γνωρίζω
32. Γνωρίζατε ότι από το 2013 η ΚraftFoods δραστηριοποιείται μόνο στην Β. Αμερική και το υπόλοιπο παγκόσμιο κομμάτι της μετονομάστηκε σε Mondelēz; a) Ναι b) Όχι
33. Αν το γνωρίζατε επηρέασε την αγοραστική σας συμπεριφορά; a) Ναι b) Όχι
34. Σε περίπτωση που δε το γνωρίζατε, είναι το γεγονός αυτό κάτι το οποίο θα επηρεάσει τις αγοραστικές σας προτιμήσεις από εδώ και πέρα; a) Ναι b) Όχι
Ευχαριστούμε πολύ για την συνεργασία.
98 | P a g e
CORPORATE REBRANDING: THE MONDELEZ CASE DIMITRAKAKOS PETROS
99 | P a g e